On Mirowski and neoliberalism

New post on Substack that argues that Mirowski is right that neoliberalism cannot be reduced to textbook neoclassical economics, since it is a broader political and institutional project (see the old debate here). But I defend that, on a theoretical, the reverse point is correct. Neoliberalism also cannot be separated from marginalist economics, that is in a sense broader than neoliberalism. All neoliberals must be in some sense neoclassical, I argue.

The more detailed reasons are in the Substack post. The gist is that the public policy rhetoric of neoliberalism invokes Adam Smith's laissez-faire and classical liberalism, but its analytical core comes from neoclassical ideas about the theory of value and the notion of markets as superior coordinating mechanisms. The key distinction is therefore that classical liberalism provides neoliberalism with political legitimacy, while neoclassical economics provides its theoretical foundation. Mirowski helps clarify neoliberalism as a movement, but the post argues that his account underplays the common marginalist ground uniting its different strands.