How Neoliberals weaponise the concept of an ideal market

This new book by Colin Crouch will perplex many on the left who simply believe neoliberalism has to be overthrown. Indeed the author starts his book by talking about the Grenfell Tower disaster, which he along with many others believe epitomises the failings of neoliberalism. Yet he writes that the book

“is not a contribution to the demonology of neoliberalism, but an attempt at a nuanced account. Only in that way can we assess its capacity for reform.”

Such an account can of course also be justified on the basis of intellectual curiosity, but in addition the author sees some positive aspects of the ideology: He summarises these as

“the discipline of price and calculation [recognising efficiency and opportunity cost}; helping us appreciate the limitations of democratic government; facilitating trade and reducing barriers to it; and facilitating links among people [reducing national divisions].”

So what exactly is neoliberalism? He defines it as

“a political strategy that seeks to make as much of our lives as possible conform to the economist’s ideal of a free market”

The problems and deficiencies of this strategy come when the conditions required for the free market to be ideal do not hold, and the author’s long discussion of these problems would be useful for any economics undergraduate.

One of these conditions for an ideal market is competition: a free market is an ideal from a social point of view if (alongside many other conditions) each good is produced by a very large number of producers. The author recognises, for obvious reasons, that most neoliberals (as opposed, perhaps, to ordoliberals) tend not to go around wanting to break up monopolies and reduce monopoly power. As a result, he distinguishes between market-neoliberals who might, and corporate-neoliberals who would not. He talks about past competition (that may have resulted in monopoly) and current competition. As Luigi Zingales describes it rather well here, business tends to be in favour of a competitive market before it enters it, but once it has a dominant position in that market it is happy to put up barriers to further competition.

The author goes on to discuss conflicts between corporate and market neoliberalism, and much else besides. I think it is a great book, free from unnecessary jargon that you often find elsewhere. It got me thinking about the concept of neoliberalism again as you can see below. Whether that is a good thing or not, I would encourage you to read the book. The author also of course discusses whether he thinks neoliberalism can save itself. For his answer to that question you will have to read the book.

Now, for what it is worth, are some of the thoughts the book inspired. They go back to the distinction between market-neoliberals and corporate-neoliberals. It seems a little odd to define an ideology as the evangelisation of the free market, and then go on to say most neoliberals happen to exclude a crucial component of that free market (competition) when it suits them. I am quite prepared to believe that some of the people who first wrote about neoliberalism many years ago (and perhaps one or two today) could be described as what the author calls market-neoliberals, but as I have suggested in the past I think neoliberalism has evolved (or if you like been distorted) by ‘big money’ or capital to become a tool for self justification.

As a result, I would tend to suggest a slightly different definition that seems to work quite well today. The definition would be: 

neoliberalism is a political strategy promoting the interests of big money that utilises the economist’s ideal of a free market to promote and extend market activity and remove all ‘interference’ in the market that conflicts with these interests.

This replaces a definition based on following an idea (the author’s market neoliberalism), by one of interests promoting an idea so long as it suits those interests.

This alternative definition seems to fit two cases I have used in the past to question more conventional ideas. Large banks benefit hugely from an implicit subsidy provided by the state (being bailed out when things go wrong), but neoliberals do not worry too much about this form of state interference in the market (whereas economists do). Regulations on the other hand they do complain about. It is a very selective focus on market interference.

The second is executive pay. This is always justified by neoliberals as being something determined by the free market, when obviously it is not. Yet if you pretend that there is a market in executives and salaries etc are set by that market and not the remuneration committees of firms, then you are being a good neoliberal by defending these salaries. This example is interesting because it involves defending one part of ‘big money’ (CEOs or some workers in finance) at the expense of another (shareholders). It is why I do not talk about the interests of capital in my definition. 

Is this alternative definition simply negating the power of ideas and going back to good old interests? Only in part. Interests utilise an idea because the idea is a powerful persuasive tool. There is an obvious lesson for the left here. Because neoliberals promote the concept of an ideal market only when it suits them, so opposing neoliberalism does not necessarily mean opposing the concept of an ideal market. The left should utiliise the same concept to oppose monopoly power, for example. The idea of a free market is too powerful an idea to cede to the other side. 

Bad business

This post mainly uses examples from the UK, but I suspect much the same story could be told in many countries. The reaction to Obama's criticism of Wall Street was extraordinary, until perhaps you realise that in the US political support is sometimes a commodity that corporations and the wealthy can buy. I return to the US at the end of this post.

I am sure the employment regime that existed at 'Sports Direct' would horrify anyone. A system of discipline that penalised taking time off sick such that ambulances responding to emergency calls were regular visitors to the factory. Many of the staff were not paid the minimum wage. This is what can happen when the majority of workers are not represented by a union, and local jobs are scarce, or other employers are not much better. We know about it because of the work of investigative journalists, but there are few of them left so how many other cases do we not know about?

A long time ago the Conservative party represented business, and the Labour party represented employees through their links to trade unions. In the 1980s the power of the trade unions was significantly reduced, and Labour leaders even thought they could gain votes by attacking some union actions. Since then, Labour have avoided ever siding with workers in industrial disputes. This continues under the current leadership: Labour did not even endorse the junior doctors strike. As a result, we can ask who represents employees against exploitation by employers within the workplace, and who represents society against rent seeking by employers at the national level?

The Conservative party was and still is the party of business. As Aeron Davis notes, even in 1997 only 7% of the business community voted Labour and 69% voted Conservative, despite all of Blair's efforts to show Labour was business friendly. In the last election business leaders did all they could to support the Conservatives, both financially and with explicit support. When this tight link between a political party and business is combined with an ideological belief among many in the party that regulations such as those that support employees are 'red tape' that needs to be cast aside, we get a mix which is potentially dangerous for employees and society.

We have seen many examples of bad business behaviour since the 2015 election, such as the emission test scandals. In some cases governments, being ‘business friendly’, actively helped with that deceit. Other examples are here, or here, or here, or here, or here(FT)/here/here/here/here, and that is not even counting the financial sector. It is estimated that over 200,000 employees are paid less than the minimum wage they are entitled to (HT Jo Maugham).

The links between the party and business, and an instinctive dislike of regulations on business, does not of course necessarily mean a Conservative government will automatically create an environment where abuses of employees and customers can flourish. As George Osborne showed when he increased the minimum wage, politicians can act against type. But it would clearly help in avoiding business exploitation if the Conservatives faced an opposition that felt free to be critical of business.

That is what Ed Miliband tried to do when he was Labour leader. He put the issue of producers versus predators, or as an economist might put it wealth creating versus rent seeking, at centre stage. Labour also proposed some relatively mild measures to reduce inequality (e.g. the mansion tax). The latter in particular were unpopular with CEOs. Partly as a result, we saw near universal endorsement of the Conservatives from business leaders.

An interesting question is why this should be seen as a problem for Labour. The answer has to be that approval by business is seen by many voters as a mark of economic competence. Of course economists know that running a business is very different from running the economy. In addition, as I think Justin Wolfers said, when a businessman claims economic expertise, remember: business is about enriching yourself, economics is about making us all better off. But the media environment encourages a rather different view. Economic issues, unless they are of major importance, are typically discussed in business sections or segments.

I have personally never understood the prominence that business news has in all parts of the media. For example, are there really that many people who want to know the daily movement in stock markets around the world every hour on BBC 24 hour news? More worrying is how often business leaders and business representatives get media coverage compared to representatives of employees, particularly at the BBC. (Business leaders also seem to beat economists at the BBC, as Justin Lewis noted about the 2015 election. This has been repeated during the referendum campaign. This is despite the public trusting us more than business leaders. [1])

The result of all this may be that Labour wants to avoid appearing anti-business. The Blair/Brown regime went out of their way to cultivate business, and were famously relaxed about the large increase in inequality at the top that occurred before their time. It is not totally ludicrous to claim that the UK financial crisis, the biggest example of business mistakes adversely effecting society for many decades, might have been partly a result of this.

The current Labour leadership is unlikely to repeat that mistake. But the problem remains that the Conservatives will throw the anti-business charge the moment Labour adopts any measures that restrict business freedom or threatens the incomes of business executives, and business leaders – for reasons already explained – will back them up. If this leads to a significant number of voters concluding that Labour are not competent to run the economy, we are in danger of hard wiring bad business. As Luigi Zingales observes in this perceptive article, although there is a deep distrust of crony capitalism among many Republican supporters, they still elected a crony capitalist.

[1] In Justin Lewis's article, he notes that “newspaper partisanship directly influenced the broadcast news agenda”. Perhaps this is the most plausible explanation for many of the BBC's biases, together with – ironically – a fear of being too left wing, as Jack Seale reports with a great quote from Robert Peston.