Views
comment.2008-02-09.7594906225
Reply
The purpose of my paper was to trace the evolution and motivation of certain related ideologies, mainly in economics, but also in other social sciences and in politics. This is a vast subject, and to handle it in one article I had to simplify and to concentrate on the main developments. Largely, these developments took place, first in England, later in the United States. Outside the English speaking world, the most important influence to the particular developments that I discuss came from France, in the form of the emphasis on mathematics and general eui8librium analysis. For these specific developments, the scholars whom you mention mentioned did not play a significant role. With the exception of Hayek, I hardly ever encounter them in the English language literature. Astudy of the contributions of German scholars to economics and other social sciences can certainly be a worthwhile enterprise, but it was not my purpose.
Regarding terminology, I wanted to adhere to commonly understood definitions. I think that in current political debates the term 'neoliberal' has a fairly clear and generally accepted meaning. One complicatio is that those usually labeled in this manner prefer to call themselves 'conservatives'.
Thanks for your comments and I hope to hear from you again when you have read further!
Claude Hillinger
True
I enjoy the natural science approach and the analysis of the controversy between „scientific method“ vs ideology. Still concerns regarding 'neolib', suggestions and furnishing information.
I would suggest a third term: economic policy: In the past there seem to have been established goals like „the mystic triangle“ meaning full employment ...[more]
... / price stability / stability of foreign trade and payments. (Difficult to manage, agreed in tendency, sounds still decent – even for the USA?) The could be labelled common 'belief' but not ideology... (I don't know whether you view 'ideology' negative or 'left' per se?)
In line with the intention of the paper I come back to 'neoliberalism' and your regarding comment. The mutation of the term 'neolib' as being a name of a market oriented theory towards the ideologic, today's phrase and typically ment negative should be part of the paper. Saying that the names didn't crossed your list of references is unsatisfacory. Today one could say that every important scientific contribution should be better formulated in English. (A lot of bright Chinese ideas may be then excluded still.) However, history covering the early 1900 should include references in other languages. the 1938 neoliberalism or better ordo liberalism had also links to protestant and catholic social theories (Soziallehren) which are of course some kind of ideology but not just „left“. Order liberalism was the base of post war German economy and still is - „enhanced“ by (but not without critics) future markets, socalled fair (random) pricing legalized by global accounting rules. It's not „peanuts“!
And there should be some semanic analysis regarding 'neolib': neo instead of new seems to be typically ment negative and 'liberal' also – in the USA in particular. Neolib is a „battle term“ (? for „Kampfbegriff“). Is it common understanding that the neolib ideology is the „third floor“ of the Chicago School? At least for myself the meaning of neolib is not clear apart from being just negative when used by Attac and similar organizations. A suggestion:
Neolib = stable currency + balanced budget + free market / free trade
a) + (or not +) global trade 24h/7d including continuous pricing
b) + future and options markets and random prizing and global rules for value accountig
(Means: Non Neolib = full emloyment + fair trade...?)
I wonder whether there is an additional field of „non scientific“: There is a belief in the anglo-american academic world that the Gaussian bell curve is a master, a blue print for all kind of economic behavior up to most recent and complex financial instruments and even of the predicting industry.
Background is a different view of the curve. In Germany it's an important contribution to the theory of errors, a most interesting function. When one is uncertain – say about the error behavior of a new machine – one is well advised to apply the Gauss formula. However, as soon as there is numerical experience the latter is dominant.
My suggestion: Why not including some of these thoughts in the paper? Even if it means some additional pages – your view will be interesting.