1
Actuallyexistingneoliberalism
JamiePeck(UBC),NeilBrenner(Harvard)andNikTheodore(UIC)
ChapterpreparedforTheSageHandbookofNeoliberalism(DamienCahilletal.,eds)
January15,2017
Introduction:definitions
Thenotionof‘actuallyexistingneoliberalism’wouldhardlybenecessarywereitnotfor
themarkedbutalsoconstitutivediscrepanciesbetweentheutopianidealismoffree-
marketnarrativesandthecheckered,uneven,andvariegatedrealitiesofthose
governingschemesandrestructuringprogramsvariouslyenactedinthenameof
competition,choice,freedom,andefficiency.Understoodasa‘strongdiscourse’deeply
enmeshedwiththeprimarycircuitsoffinancial,cultural,andcorporatepower
(Bourdieu,1998),neoliberalismtellsaself-servingstoryoffreemarketsandsmall
states,selectivederegulationandtargetedreregulation,lowtaxesandlean
administration,inwhichprivatizedandmarket-likearrangementsarepresentedin
positiveterms,incontrasttothecorruptandbloatedobjectsofreform—mostnotably
‘biggovernment’and‘biglabor’.Thissaid,‘neoliberalism’itselfhaspracticallyno
officiallysanctionedstatus,rarelycrossingthelipsofeventhemostardentoffree-
marketreformers.Sometimearoundthemiddleofthetwentiethcentury,whenthe
ideationalprojectofneoliberalismwasconfinedtoafringenetworkofconservative
intellectualandrenegadeeconomists,thetermfelloutofuseamongstproponents,to
bereplacedbyanaltogethermoreeuphemisticvocabulary.Thishasmadeanalyzing
thedimensionsandcharacteristicsofmarketruleallthemorecomplicated.1Intheage
ofactuallyexistingneoliberalism(s),sincethe1970s,whentheprojecthasrarelyspoken
itsname,academiccriticsandpoliticalfoesresuscitatedthisterminologyandbeganto
1Foranotable‘countercultural’example,anexceptionthateffectivelyprovesthemoregeneralrule,seetheAdamSmithInstitute’srecentefforttoreclaimandrecuperatethemonikerneoliberal,onbehalfofitsrightfulowners,onemightsay(Pirie,2014;Bowman,2016;cf.Peck,2010,2018).
2
define,place,andpositionneoliberalism.Itistothistasktowhichwedevotethis
chapter.
The‘flexiblecredo’ofneoliberalismhasbeenrealizedthroughasomewhat
improvisedandshape-shiftingrepertoireofpro-corporate,pro-marketprograms,
projects,andpower-plays,variouslyfoundedonasympatheticcritiqueof19thCentury
liberalism(orlaissezfaire),onanuncompromisingCold-Warrepudiationofsocialism
andcommunism,andonadecidedlyantagonisticrelationshipwithpost-SecondWorld
Warmodesofliberalregulation(notably,Keynesianismanddevelopmentalism,
representedasperilouscompromisesontheslipperyslopesofoftotalitarianism,
statism,andserfdom).Whilesharingsomecommonpointsofreference,programsof
identifiablyneoliberalstateandsocietaltransformation,astheybegantogaintraction
inthe1970s,didnotemergeinasingularoruniformmanner,shapedasthey(each)
werebycontext-specificcrises,struggles,andexperiments.Whatbeganasaloosely
articulatedclusterofstateprojects,incountriessuchasChile,theUnitedKingdom,New
Zealand,andtheUnitedStates,wouldsubsequentlymorphintoanadaptivematrixof
market-orientedandpro-corporateregulatorynorms.Readasafree-marketpolicy
paradigm,thiswouldinformtheoperatingmanualdevelopedbythearchitectsof
structural-adjustmentprogramsamongstthe‘Washingtonconsensus’institutions;asa
transnationalpoliticalproject,itwouldcumulativelyreshaperulesoftheregulatory
gameonamuchmoregeneralizedbasis,seepingandsprawlingintosomething
resemblinganormalizedcommonsense,orpracticalhegemony.Intheprocess,
neoliberalismhasgonefromavanguardistpoliticalprojecttoanentrenchedmodeof
regulation—indeedinsomerespectsbothan‘ordinary’anda‘constitutionalized’one
(seeBrenneretal.,2014;GillandCutler,2014;Peck,2017).
Understoodasideologicalmatrixandasanadaptiverationaleforongoing
projectsofstateandsocietalrestructuring,fortifiedandguidedbyastrongdiscourseof
marketprogress,neoliberalismplainlycannotexistintheworldin‘pure,’uncut,or
unmediatedform.Instead,its‘actuallyexisting’manifestationsare—andcanonlybe—
partial,polycentric,andplural;itsdynamicsoffrontaladvanceandflawedreproduction
3
aremarkedbyfriction,contradiction,polymorphism,andunevengeographical
development,andnotjustbecausetheproject-cum-processhasbeensomehow
‘blocked’orhalf-cocked—thatitremainsincomplete—butbecausevolatilehybridityis
theconditionofexistence.Itisforthesereasonsthatwehavelongmadethecasefor
processualunderstandingsofneoliberalization,coupledwitharecognitionofthe
necessarydiversityofitsactuallyexistingforms,thecombinedandunevendevelopment
ofwhichisenduringbutalsomutuallyconditioning(BrennerandTheodore,2002a;Peck
andTickell,2002).
Ascriticalsocialscientistshavewrestledwiththecomplexconnectionsbetween
theideological,ideational,institutional,andoften-idiosyncraticmanifestationsofthe
free-marketproject,theterm‘neoliberal’graduallycametoassumeaquitedeterminate
politicalmeaningwithintheradicallexicon.Formanyontheleft,ithasbecomea
bywordformarketization,privatization,commodification,andtheruleofthe1%,but
quiteoftenasmoreofasloganratherthanapreciselyspecifiedterm.Alongtheway,
theterminologyofneoliberalismhasbeenvariouslyinvoked—increasinglyliberally,one
mightsay—sometimesasashorthandsignifierofthefree-marketzeitgeistofthepost-
1970speriodorthepressuresofglobalcompetition,sometimesasapoliticalattack
termoreverydaypejorative,andinothercasesasananalyticframe,coveringconcept,
ordiagnosticdevice.Inaquiteextraordinarilydiffuseway,differentreadingsand
renderingsof‘neoliberalism’cannowbefound‘allovertheplace’.Theywillbeinvoked
inmicrosociologicalstudiesofshiftingsubjectivitiesandintheculturalcritiqueofsocial
codesandgoverningrationalities;theyhavebecomeadjectivalcommonplacesinwork
thatspansthescalarspectrum,fromlocalizedinstitutionalreformsthroughprojectsof
national(state)transformation,toglobalruleregimesandgeopoliticalorders.The
politicallychargedlabelwillbebroadly(andsometimesquiteindiscriminately)applied
totheinstitutionsandinterestsoftheWashington-consensusagenciesorthoseofWall
Street,butalsotoadiversearrayof‘deregulation’,privatization,marketreform,and
structural-adjustmentpolicies.Inmoreorlessobliqueways,itmaybeattachedtothe
initiativesofreformingsocial-democraticgovernmentsinnorthernEuropeandalsoto
4
certainactionsoftheChinese(communist)partystate.Andyet,perhapsmost
paradoxically,thelingoofneoliberalismremainsdifficultto‘translate’inwhatmany
considertobethe‘home’ofthisWashington-and-Wall-Streetworldview,theUnited
States,partlythankstotheleft-of-centerconnotationsoftheword‘liberal’inthat
country,nottomentionthecontradictorygyrationsoftheTrumpadministration.
Inlightoftheargumentsthatwewilldevelopintheremainderofthischapter,
however,itisquiteappropriatethatthetangleofmeaningsattachedto‘neoliberalism’
remainbothsomewhatambiguousandsituationallyspecific,spanningastheydoarash
ofpromiscuously‘global’applicationsandaconstellationofquiteparticularlocal
translations.Thismaybealittleperplexingfromananalyticalpointofview,butit
arguablysayssomethingabouthowneoliberalismexistsintheworld—asapresence
seeminglyoppressive,real,andimmediateinsomerespects,butatthesametimeone
thatcanalsobeconsideredtobediffuse,abstract,andliminal.Dueinnosmallmeasure
tothesewheels-within-wheelspuzzlesofsemanticsandsignification,theproblems
associatedwithdefininganddelimitingneoliberalismarearguablymoredauntingnow
thaneverbefore.Somewillconfidentlyproclaimthattheyknowthetelltalesignsof
neoliberalismwheneverandwherevertheyseethem,andtheywillseethempractically
everywhere;othersinsistnolessemphaticallythattherecognitionofthisconnective,
envelopingconceptisconstraining(ifnotsuffocating)inbothanalyticalandpolitical
terms,optingtoholditataskepticaldistance,orperhapstospurntheformulation
altogether.Tobesure,itisonethingtoapplythelabeltotheradicalrestructuring
programsinitiatedbyAugustoPinochetorMargaretThatcherorRonaldReagan,quite
anothertoaccountforabewilderingarraylate-stagemutations,ambienttraces,local
hybrids,incipienttendenciesinthesesame(orsimilar)terms,interpretativeand
classificatorychallengesthathavepromptedsomeanalyststoquestiontheutilityofthe
concept,justasotherscontinuetofinditnecessary,whilewrestlingwithisrascal
character(seeClarke,2008;Ferguson,2010;Pecketal.,2010;Hall,2011;Peck,2013;
Vengopal,2015;LeGalès,2016).
5
Amongstthosewhofindcontinuingutilityintheconceptofneoliberalism,asan
analyticalframeandasanecessary(ifawkward)conceptualformulation,thenotionof
actuallyexistingneoliberalismhasservedthesignificantfunctionofsignalingand
problematizingtheenduringdiscrepanciesbetweentheidealizedanduniversalizing
languageofmarketreform(neoliberalismasstarkutopia,toborrowPolanyi’sprophetic
phrase)andthepath-dependent,pragmatic,andcontextualembeddednessofextant
programsofneoliberaltransformation(neoliberalismasstarkreality,onemightsay).
Thisisawayofacknowledging,attheoutset,thatthestrongdiscourseofneoliberalism
itselfhasgenerativeandconstitutiveeffects,notleastbyvirtueoftheongoingeffectsof
naturalizationandnormalization,butalsothroughthecreepofpolicymakingcontagion
andthecolonizationofcommonsenseunderstandings.Furthermore,invokingactually
existingneoliberalismreflectstherecognitionthatreal-worldprogramsofneoliberal
restructuringareneverunfurledacrossatabularasa,noraretheyentrainedona
convergenttransformationalcourse.Rather,theyareforged(andoftenforced)in
dialecticaltensionwithinheritedsocialandinstitutionallandscapes,andthroughan
arrayofsituatedpoliticalstrugglesandstrategicmaneuvers,suchthatneoliberalism
‘canneverbeunderstoodinradicalseparationfromhistorical[andgeographical]
configurations’(Hilgers,2012:81;seealsoBrennerandTheodore,2002a;Peckand
Theodore,2012;Ban,2016).
Eschewing‘flat’readingsoftotalizingconvergence(whereneoliberalismexhibits
asingularandrigidlyimposedglobalform)aswellas‘centric’modelsofcoercionand
diffusion(whereneoliberalismisreadasatop-downimposition,orasaphenomenon
radiatingunidirectionallyoutfrom‘heartlands’to‘peripheries’),theconceptofactually
existingneoliberalismisaprovocationtotheorize—continually—throughandacross
historicalandgeographicaldifference.Itexplicitlyproblematizesanongoing
interpretativedialoguebetweencriticalinvestigationsofmaterialanddiscursive
projectsofpolitical-economictransformation‘ontheground’,manyofwhichare
routinelydistortedeveniftheyarenotallthatregularlythwarted,andthe‘complex
unity’ofneoliberalisminitsabstractedform,whichisplainlynotreducibletosome
6
ChicagoSchool,Thatcherite,WallStreet,MontPelerinian,thirdway,orWashington-
consensusform,butwhichexistsasmorethanthesumofthese(andother)always-
movingparts.Thepositionthatweadvocateherecannotbereducedtoamere
acknowledgmentof‘varieties’or‘localizations’ofneoliberalism,inastaticsenseof
cross-sectionalorplanardifference;itisamatterofproblematizingconstitutiveand
articulateddifferencesinmotion,andthecumulativeandcombinatorialcharacterof
neoliberalizationasanunevenlydevelopedandreproducedhistoricalprocess.The
notionofactuallyexistingneoliberalismthereforeconfrontsunevenspatial
development,nonlinearevolution,variegation,polymorphism,andpolysemism,notas
empiricalconcessionsorconstructivistcaveats,norasmerelycontingentvariations
foundinthewakeofsomepresumptionofstructuraldominance,butasconstitutive
propertiesofthecontradictoryprocessthatisneoliberalization(seeBrenneretal.,
2010b;PeckandTheodore,2012).Abstracttheorizingandcontextualizedinvestigations
arethereforenotalternativepursuits,inthisrespect,butoppositesidesofthesame
methodologicalstrategy,eachcallingupontheother.
Theoriginsoftheconceptofactuallyexistingneoliberalismcanbetraced,tothe
bestofourknowledge,toanAntipodeworkshopconvenedintheFallof2001(see
BrennerandTheodore,2002b).Theremitofthatmeetingwastoexploretheemergent
dynamicsofNorthAmericanandWesternEuropeanpatternsofneoliberalization,with
particularreferencetothegeographicallyunevenandmultiscalarcharacterofthese
transformations.Needlesstosay,‘actuallyexistent’formsofneoliberalismwerehardly
anoveltyatthetime,especiallyintheUnitedStatesandtheUnitedKingdom,butthere
werevexingquestionsaroundtheconceptualizationandspecificationofthiswould-be
political-economickeyword,whichhadyettoacquireanythingapproachinga
widespreadintellectualcurrency,evenincriticalcircles.Mostofthoseattendingthe
meetingwerebyinclinationskepticalofformulationsderivedfromoverarchingor
archetypicalmodelsofneoliberalism,thesingularityofwhichechoedtheeuphemistic
(mis)representationofuniversalmarketfreedomsonthepartofreformadvocates.
Instead,sharedprojectinitiatedattheworkshopinvolvedasimultaneousconcernwith
7
thetransnationalreachofneoliberalrationalitiesandreformmodelsandthegrounded
particularitiesofactuallyexistingprogramsofrestructuring.
Trackingbetweensomeoftheselongstandingconcernsandsubsequentlinesof
workonthevariegationofneoliberalism,theargumentsintheremainderofthis
chapterarepursuedintwosteps.First,theconceptsofneoliberalism,neoliberalization
andactuallyexistingneoliberalismareelaboratedandextended.Thisinvolves
movementsbetweenmore‘generic’readingsofneoliberalismanditsevolving,unevenly
developed,andsite-specificform(s),culminatinginadiscussionofthetemporalityof
actuallyexistingneoliberalism.Second,andbuildinguponthesefoundations,the
implicationsofaconjuncturalunderstandingofneoliberalismarefurtherexplored,
focusingontheissueofunevengeographicaldevelopment,notasameasureofhow
someonce-pureneoliberalismbecamecomplicatedorsullied‘intheworld’,butasa
matterofitsverycircumstancesofexistence.Thechapter’sconclusionreturnstothese
knottyproblemsofdefinition.Hereitissuggestedthatthenotionofactuallyexisting
neoliberalismhasplayedaroleinproblematizingtheembeddedspatiality,adaptive
capacities,stubbornnormalization,andshape-shiftingdynamicsofneoliberalizationina
waythatprovidesbotharationaleandareceiptfortranscendent,critical,andopen-
endedmodesofanalysis.
Concepts
Thetasksofunpackingandrepackingtheconceptofneoliberalism,itsongoing
deconstructionandreconstruction,aredestinedtoremainongoingones—ratherlikethe
radically‘incompletable’projectofneoliberalismitself,perhaps—evenif,fromour
perspective,thesetaskscontinuetobenecessary.Inapproximatelydescendinglevelsof
abstraction,neoliberalismcanbetakentoreferto:anhistoricallyascendantpatternand
hegemonicideologyofcapitalistdevelopment,organicallylinkedtoahostofpost-1970s
tendenciestowardsglobaleconomicintegration,financialization,andnormalized
practicesof‘marketrule’;apolitical-economicphilosophy,withapredispositionforliberal
8
economics,encompassinganaturalizedunderstandingofmarketforcesandrationalities,
togetherwithalicenseformarket-complementingstateinterventions;apervasive
rationalityoflean-orsmall-statetransformation,modeledontheprinciplesof
entrepreneurialism,efficiency,costcontrol,privatism,andcompetition,butspeaking
moretoastrategicallyselectiveapproachtogovernmentalrestructuringthantoa
comprehensivelyachievedinstitutionalcondition;andanumbrellatermfora
programmaticallyconnectedfamilyofpro-market,pro-corporate,andpro-choicepolicy
measures,includingthesaleofstateassetsandservices,regressivetaxreform,programs
of‘deregulation’,thegrantingofcorporateconcessionsandexemptions(evenfrom
marketruleitself),thepenalorpaternalistmanagementofpoverty,thecommodification
ofsociallifeandnaturalresources,andthe(oftentechnocratic)impositionoffiscal
discipline,structuraladjustment,markettests,anddevolvedausterity.
Fundamentally,theideologyofneoliberalismisfoundedonanidealizedvisionof
marketruleandliberalfreedoms,combiningautilitarianconceptionofmarketrationality
andcompetitiveindividualismwithdeepantipathiestosocialredistributionandsolidarity.
Notwithstandingtheutopianappealtofreemarketsandindividualfreedoms,
unencumberedfromregulatoryconstraintsandstate‘interference’,inpracticethese
doubled-edgedreformsveryoftenentailasignificantintensificationofcoercive,
proactive,andinvasiveformsofstateinterventioninordertoimposeversionsofmarket
rule,todisciplineunrulysubjects—andthentomanagetheensuingcontradictions,
environmentalexternalities,andsocialfallout.Oneofneoliberalism’sfoundingmythsis
that‘rollingbackthefrontiersofthestate’,toborrowoneofMargaretThatcher’sturnsof
phrase,willmoreorlessonitsownbesufficienttoanimateaspontaneouscompetitive
order,toliberatelatentmarketforces,andtoactivatesuppressedentrepreneurialspirits.
Experienceshowsthatthis,however,isnevertheendofthestory,asneoliberalreformers
havebeenrepeatedlydrawn,sometimesreluctantly,intotheworkofmakingmarkets
work,initiatingnewroundsofinstitutionbuildingandpro-market‘governance’.This
speakstothecomplexrealityoftheneoliberalizationasajarring,non-teleological,and
contradictoryprocessofcreativedestruction,comprisingalternatingmomentsof
9
deregulatory‘rollback’andre-regulatory‘rollout’,amountingtoaninterventionistmode
ofregulation‘indenial’(Peck,2010).Furthermore,whereasneoliberalideologyimplies
thatself-regulatingmarketsgenerateoptimalallocationsofinvestmentandresources,
neoliberalpoliticalpracticehasitselfbeenacauseofpervasivemarketfailures,newforms
ofsocialandenvironmentaldegradation,increasedsocioeconomicinequalityanduneven
spatialdevelopment,andendemicconditionsofgovernancefailure.
Themanifolddisjuncturesanddiscrepanciesthathaveaccompaniedthe
transnationalextensionandprogressivedeepeningofneoliberalism—betweenideology
andpractice;doctrineandreality;objectiveandoutcome—cannotbeglossedoveras
merelyaccidentalside-effectsorfailuresofimplementation;rather,theyareamongits
mostdiagnosticallyandpoliticallysalientfeatures.Forthisreason,anessentializedor
reductionistapproachtothepoliticaleconomyofneoliberalrestructuringcanneverbe
sufficient.(Andneither,forthatmatter,arestrictlyparsimoniousdefinitionsof
neoliberalismeverreallyadequate.)Thisisnotacoherentlybounded‘ism’,afunctional
system,astableregime,oranhistorical‘end-state’;neither,forthatmatter,doesittake
theformofafixedsetofpolicypreferencesandtechnologies.Instead,therollingand
contradictoryprocessofneoliberalizationshouldbeunderstoodasanuneven,
frustrated,creativelydestructive,adaptive,andopen-endedprocessoftransformation.
(Inotherwords,itnamesthechangeprocess,notsimplyitsoutcome.)Thisiswhy,for
presentpurposes,thesomewhatelusivephenomenoninneedofdefinitional
clarificationmustbeinterpretedasanhistoricallyspecific,fungible,volatile,and
unstableprocessofmarket-drivensociospatialrestructuring(forallitsimperative
manifestationsandalignmentswithcontemporarypower-geometries),ratherthanasa
fullyactualizedpolicyregime,completeinstitutionalapparatus,orstabilizedregulatory
framework.‘Equilibrium’isnotaroundthecorner.Furthermore,neoliberalizationis
bothpredicatedonandrealizedthroughunevenspatialdevelopment,its‘naturalstate’
beingcharacterizedbyanintenselyvariegatedandpersistentlydynamictopography.
Therefore,unevenspatialdevelopmentdoesnotsignalsomeway-stationenrouteto
‘full’neoliberalism;itisnotaninterruptionormerecomplication,butisintegraltothe
10
characterofprocessofneoliberalizationitselfanditscontradictoryconditionsof
existence.Convergenceonaunified,monolithicneoliberalend-stateshouldnotbe
anticipated,letaloneheldupassomekindoftestofthe‘degree’ofneoliberalization.
Indexingasitdoesaqualitativeprocessoftransformation,neoliberalizationcannotbe
reducedtoaquestionweighingthesizeofthestateortheextentofthemarket,asif
thetwospheresexistedinazero-sumrelationship.
Asweformulateithere,then,neoliberalizationreferstoafrontalprocessof
always-incompletetransformation,toaprevailingpatternandethosofmarket-oriented,
market-disciplinary,andmarket-makingregulatoryrestructuring,onethatisbeing
realized,nevermorethanpartially,acrossacontested,uneveninstitutionallandscape,in
thecontextofheterogeneous,coevolving,andoftencountervailingpolitical-economic
conditions.Fromthisperspective,anadequateunderstandingofongoingprocessesof
neoliberalizationdemandsmorethanafamiliaritywiththefoundingideasandideologies
ofthefree-marketrevolution,whichhavethemselvesevolvedconsiderablysincetheir
canonizationbythelikesofvonHayekandFriedman.Justasimportantareprobing,
multi-dimensional,andsystematicinquiriesintothemultifariousinstitutionalarticulations
anddevelopmentaltendenciesdisplayedbyactuallyexistingneoliberalformations,into
theirdiversesociopoliticaleffectsandlocalconfigurations,andintotheirinherentlimits
andcumulativecontradictions.Whiletheideologyofneoliberalismdeferstothe
sovereigntyofasingular,transhistorical,anduniquelyefficientmarket,theinescapably
moremurkyrealityisthatactuallyexistingprogramsofneoliberaltransformationare
alwayscontextuallyembedded,institutionallygrounded,andpoliticallymediated—forall
theirgenericfeatures,familyresemblances,patterneddynamics,andstructural
interconnections.Adequateanalysesofneoliberalizationmustthereforeconfrontthis
necessaryhybridityandcomplexspatiality,sinceitisnotonlyproblematic,butanalytically
andpoliticallymisleading,tovisualizeneoliberalismpurelyinideal-typicalterms,asif
characterizedbyincipientorextantfunctionality.Programsofneoliberalrestructuringare
notlineduponapathwaytocompleteortotalneoliberalism,eveniftheywilloften
deriveideologicalinspiration,strategicdirection,andpoliticalpurposefromthis
11
(imagined,utopian)destination.Justasthenotionofafree-standing,self-regulating
markethasbeenexposedasamisleadingbutproductivemyth,itmustberecognizedthat
characteristicallyneoliberalevocationsofaspontaneousandsuperiormarketorder
operateasastrongdiscourse—thatis,asomewhatself-actualizinghomily,ratherthanan
accurateportrayalofneoliberalstatecraft(seeBourdieu,1998;Cahill,2012;Brown,
2015).Forthisreason,processesofneoliberalizationareinescapablyembeddedand
context-contingentphenomena—evenastheirowndiscursive(mis)representations
routinelyseektodenythisverycontextualembeddedness.
Evenif,inanabstractsense,thebroadcontoursofneoliberalprojectscanbe
saidtoexhibitahostofrecurringfeaturesandfamilyresemblances—suchasan
orientationtowardsexport-oriented,financializedcapital;apreferencefornon-
bureaucraticandflexiblemodesofregulation;anaversiontoprogressivesociospatial
redistributionandinstitutionalizedsocialentitlements;themaskingofelitepower,
ongoingdispossession,andupwardredistributionbyideologiesofcompetitivefairness
andtrickle-downeconomics;andastructuralinclinationinfavorofmarket-mimicking
governancesystems,corporateconcessions,andprivatizedmonopolies—theactually
existingneoliberalismsoftodaycannotbutdisplaytheirdeeplypath-dependentorigins
andtheongoingeffectsoftheircontradictoryandconflictualcohabitationwithnon-
neoliberalothers.Notonlydothey(continueto)differfromoneanother,theyeach
havecometodifferinquitesignificantwaysfromthefirstgenerationofvanguard
projectsoriginatinginthe1970s.Andeveniftheselatter-dayactuallyexisting
neoliberalismscoexistinanoperatingenvironmentmarkedbyanarrayofgeneralized
disciplines,pressures,andincentives—suchasthosestemmingfromfinancialization,
regimecompetition,geopoliticalcoercion,andfast-policymodeling—itwouldbegoing
toofartoclaimthatthisisresultinginaconsistentpatternofunidirectional
convergence.Theneoliberalworldorderremainsamultipolarone,andthevarious
leadingfrontsofactiveneoliberalizationatthepresenttimeincludearangeofsocially
ameliorative,reactionary,technocratic,andauthoritarianforms.Furthermore,evenas
thesedisplayahegemonicreach—forinstance,asapolicymakingcommonsenseandas
12
aprocessualcommonthread—thismostcertainlydoesnotmeanthat‘theneoliberal’is
alwaysandeverywherethemostactiveandpredominantsourceoftransformative
change.Themovingterrainisalsobeingremadebycountervailingandalternative
projects,bypulsesandcyclesofactiveresistance,byobstructionandopportunism,and
byrecurrentcrisesofvaryingscaleandscope,someofwhicharesystemic,othersmuch
moresituational.
Anenduringsourceofpathdependencyacrossthisdiversefamilyofvariably
neoliberalizedsocialformationsandstateprojectsstemsfromthecreativelydestructive
characterofmarketruleitself.Weclosethispartofthediscussionbyreturningtothe
dialecticsofcreativedestruction.Ontheonehand,thereactionarymomentof
neoliberalizationentailsthe(partial)destructionordissolutionofextantinstitutional
arrangementsandsocialcompromisesthroughmarket-orientedreforminitiatives;on
theotherhand,itsproactivefaceinvolvesthe(tendential)formationofnewregulatory
infrastructuresandnormsformarket-orienteddevelopmentandcapital-centricrule
(BrennerandTheodore,2002a).Thearcoftheneoliberalrestructuringprocessextends
acrossbothofthesemoments,acrosscontext-specificrollbacksofantithetical
institutionalformsandoppositionalpowercentersthroughthedismantlingand
‘deregulation’ofcollectivist,progressivelyredistributionist,anddevelopmentalist
systems,andthesubsequentrolloutofnewmodesofinstitutionalregulationandnovel
stylesofstatecraft,manyofwhichstemfromtheneedtomanagethecontradictions
andnegativeexternalitiesofearlierroundsofneoliberalization(seePeckandTickell,
2002;HallandMassey,2010;Brenneretal.,2010a).
Thisisnotjusttomakethepointthatneoliberalstrategiesechodomesticpolitics
orthattheyarepathdependentinacontingentmanner,butrathertoissuethe
strongerclaimthatneoliberalstrategiesaredeeplyandindeliblyshapedbydiversebut
formativeactsofinstitutionaldissolution.Theprotractedrollbackmomentof
neoliberalismismorethansimplya‘brush-clearing’phase;itiseffectivelyinternalized
intothedynamics,logicsandtrajectoriesofsubsequentregulatorytransformations.
Furthermore,thegeographiesofactuallyexistingneoliberalizationhavebeenmashed
13
up,fromthestart,withwiththecrisis-rivengeographiesof‘statefailure’thattheywere
designedtoexploitand,ultimately,supersede.Consequently,allactuallyexisting
neoliberalismsstronglybeartheimprintofpastregulatorystruggles,whichrecursively
shapepoliticalcapacitiesandorientations,aswellasfuturepathwaysof(neoliberal)
restructuring.Andnosinglepathormodelshouldbeconsideredparadigmatic(from
which‘deviations’canbemeasured),sinceactuallyexistingneoliberalismsarealways,
necessarily,conjuncturallyspecific,aswellasmutuallyarticulating.Thereisnolocus
classicus.Conceptually,thisechoesourclaimthatneoliberalizationasanopen-ended
process,andnotaclearlydemarcatedphaseorendstate.Politically,thisunderlinesthe
characterofneoliberalizationasasetofintersectingstrategiesofrestructuring,rather
thanastableandfreestandingsystem,theoutcomesofwhicharealsoopen-ended
ratherthanpreordained.
Thisemphasisonthetendentiallyadaptiveandcreativecapacitiesof
neoliberalismmaybeatoddswithsomeaccountsofitsdestructiveandintrinsically
unsustainablecharacter,butwewouldmaintainthatthismoredialecticalreadingcan
helpilluminatethecomplex,oftenhighlycontradictorytrajectoriesofwhathaveproved
tobequitedoggedlypersistent,andyetcontinuallyevolving,programsofneoliberal
restructuring.Furthermore,thedestructiveandcreativemomentsofneoliberalization
arenotseparateandliterallysequential;inpracticetheyareintimatelyandinextricably
entangled.(Theyare‘moments’inthattheyrepresentconflictualyetmutuallyrelated
aspectsofadynamic,dialecticalprocess.)Actuallyexistingneoliberalismsexhibitdeeply
reactionarycurrentsinthesensethattheyareshapedasmuchbytheirantipathiesand
antithesesasbytheirpubliclydeclaredbutoftenfrustratedgoalsofmarket-oriented
transformation,theprojected‘endpoint’ofwhichremainsnotonlysociallyand
ecologicallyunsustainable,butalsopoliticallyandeconomicallyunrealizable.Thisisa
utopianendpoint,nevertheless,thatcontinuestoinspire,animate,guide,and
occasionally‘correct’programsofneoliberaltransformation—asourceofitselemental
‘drive’.
14
Whileevery(particular)experienceofneoliberalizationismarkedbyitsown
temporality—itsowncalendarofkeyevents,confrontations,andcrises—withthe
benefitofhindsightitispossibletodetermineseveralcoursecorrectionsofamore
generalvariety.Attheveryleast,thesespeaktotheadaptivenature(andpolitical
resilience)oftheproject.Moretelling,perhaps,isthefactthatwhileneoliberalismhas
displayed—sofar—anabilitytoadaptandevolveinthefaceofcrises,increasinglythese
arecrisesofitsownmaking,arisingfromitsaggravated,internalcontradictionsand
limitations.(Thefollowingmidcourseadjustments,inthissense,aremostcertainlynot
merelyoscillationsaroundsomeequilibriumpointorsimplythefine-tuningofastable
setofneoliberalizedgovernancearrangements.)First,thefailureofmonetarisminthe
early1980s,coupledwiththeshortcomingsofthefirstgenerationofexperimentsin
privatizationandderegulation,promptedaseriesofturnstowardspragmatismand
prudence,subsequentlytomorphintonewroundsofexperimentationinmarket-
complementing,institutionallyflanking,andameliorativemodesofgovernance.Atthe
internationalscale,thisshiftwasechoedinthemoveawayfromloan-basedstructural
adjustmentmodels,focusedonthemacro-regulatory‘fundamentals’,totheso-called
post-Washingtonconsensus,withitsemphasisoninstitutionalreform,local
empowerment,andpovertyalleviation(seeNaím,2000).Second,the‘thirdway’
projectsthatwerelaunched,fromthemid-1990sonwards,presagedasignificant
internationalrealignmentofcenter-leftgovernments,signifiedbyaccommodationsto
freer-tradingformsofglobalization,tofinancializedmodelsofgrowth,andtotheneed
toconfront‘hardchoices’insocial-policyreform.Foratime,itseemedlikethisClinton-
Blairstyleof‘softneoliberalism’mightevenconstitutethe‘bestpoliticalshell’forthe
projectofmarket-orientedgovernance(seeHall,2003).Third,theWallStreetcrashof
2008,whichwasinitiallymarkedbyaseriesofprematureannouncementsofthe‘death’
ofneoliberalism,ledinsteadtoawidespreadturntowardsdevolvedausterity
governanceandselectivelyapplied‘stimulus’spending,thelimitationsofwhichwereto
berevealedinpatternsofsluggishgrowth,spiralinginequalities,andincreasinglyrestive
politics.Real-timeinterpretationsofthisinflectionpointinthepoliticaleconomyof
15
neoliberalizationwereinitiallydividedbetweenrelativelyoptimisticvisions‘post-
neoliberalism’andforecastsofaretro-neoliberalturn(back)torevanchism,withthe
latterprovingtobethepredominantcourse(seePecketal.,2010).Andfourth,justas
theproximateoriginsoftheWallStreetcrashwerelocatedintheUnitedStates,the
centersoffinancecapital,NewYorkandLondon,sotheBrexitreferendumresultand
theTrumpelectioncameasfurthersignsoftroubleinthesupposed‘heartlands’.The
futurecourseofeventsisinherentlyunpredictable,perhapsprofoundlyso,butearly
indicationsarethatthecenter-leftmodelof‘softneoliberalism’,orwhatNancyFraser
(2017)hascalled‘progressiveneoliberalism’,couldnowbefacingaterminalcrisis,as
newgoverningpathsareimprovisedinthecontextofsurgingcurrentsofright-wing
populism,cronyism,authoritarianism,protectionism,andkleptocracy.
ConjuncturesAccountingforneoliberalism‘inthewild’,andacrossitsmanydomesticated,conflicted,
hybrid,contested,andcrisis-ponemanifestations,hasbeenachallengeforaslongas
therehavebeen(critical)theoriesofneoliberalism.Alongstandingconcernhasbeento
accountfortherevealed,andveryreal,‘diversityof“actuallyexisting”neoliberalisms
[whilealsoattendingto]whyandhowthediffusesystemofpowerthatlendsthema
certainunityhasmanagedtoimplantitselfwithsuchapparentsuccessinsuchawide
rangeofcircumstances’(Gledhill,2004:336).Bythesametoken,itisalsothecasethat
actuallyexistingneoliberalismsare‘morethancuriouslocalmanifestationsofglobal
norms’,asDanielGoldstein(2012:305)haspointedout;morethan‘locallyvariegated
instantiationsofglobalideas[sincetheyarealso]fullylivedrealitiesinwhichpeopleand
stateshavetheirowntheories,andelaboratetheirowndiscoursesandcritiques,about
theworldstheyinhabitandthewaysinwhichtheseshouldbeorganised’.Furthermore,
noneoftheselocal,lived,andhybridformationsexistasifhermeticallysealedfromone
another;theycoexistinthecontextofrelational,more-than-localfieldsofisomorphic
institutionalchange,fast-policymutation,iterative(re)articulation,andcompetitively
inducedadaptation.Wehavearguedelsewherethatisnothelpfultoreducethisfinely
16
granulated,ifdeeplystriated,landscapetosomekindofbinarygeographyinwhich
neoliberalizationisnaturalizedinsomesites(itsostensiblyparadigmaticlocations),
whilebeingrenderedexceptionalorabnormalinothers(Brenneretal.,2010b).Instead,
neoliberalismmightbesaidonlytoexistinamultiplicityof‘discrepant’formations,ina
rangeofantagonistic,conflictual,oratleast‘frictional’situations—itslocalconditionsof
existencebeingthoseofcontradictorycoexistence.
Butifneoliberalismcanneverentirelymonopolizethesocialfield,whatareits
conditionsof(actual)existence?Sinceitdoesnotandcannotstandalone,the
circumstancesofneoliberalism’s(co)existencecompriseanarrayoftroubledand
turbulentmarriageswithitsdecidedlyunlovedothers,includingahostofresidual,
competing,andalternativesocialformations,suchasthosegroundedin
neoconservatism,authoritarianism,socialdemocracy,developmentalism,left
reformism,andsoforth(seeBrenneretal.,2010b;Peck,2013).Ifneoliberalismcannot
exhaustivelyoccupythesocialfield,itmustsharethatfield,evenasitmayoftendoso
underconditionsofdominanceorevenhegemony.Furthermore,ifneoliberalismexists
asafrustrateduniversalfoundonlyinstressedhybridsanddiscrepantformations,its
transnational(andtranslocal)patterningcannotbereducedtovariationarounda
commonthemeornorm.Consequently,sinceneoliberalismexistsasaseriesof
unhappymarriages,theresultingfamilytreedoesnothaveasingularneoliberaltaproot,
butratheradiversearrayofrootsandbranches.
Asarestructuringethos,neoliberalismisalwaysdefined—atleastinpart—by
thesocialworldsandstatespacesthattheprojectitselfseekstorestructure.Eachand
everysuchprogramwillthereforeexhibitdeeplyconstitutive(ifnot‘genetic’)formsof
pathdependency,withthescope,sites,targets,andtrajectoriesofneoliberal
transformationallbeingshaped,aswehaveargued,bytheinstitutional,social,and
political-economicinheritancesthatnotonlypredatesomeinitiating‘moment’of
market-orientedreformbutpredicateandpropelit,impartingshape,momentum,and
purpose.Inthiscontext,pre-ornon-neoliberalinstitutionsaremorethananachronistic
institutionalresidues,fortheirinterpenetrationwithsituatedmodalitiesofneoliberal
17
restructuringwillconfigurepathways,strategies,andoutcomesindistinctive,
generative,butalsocontradictoryways.Itfollowsthatthehybridpresencesof
neoliberalization—eachactuallyexistingformationbeingamore-than-neoliberal
formation—willeachbeassociatedwiththeirown,conjuncturallyandlocallydistinctive
clustersofemergentproperties,potentialities,andfrailties.Theevolvinggeographies
ofneoliberalismconsequentlyamounttomore-than-contingentvariationsaroundthe
samebasictheme;theyrepresentcontextuallyembeddedandyettransnationally
articulatedformations,thecoexistenceofwhichmakesadifferenceevenifitdoesnot
implyconvergence.Hencetheneedforsituatedanalysesofspecifichybridformations
inrelationbothtooneanotherandtobroadertendenciesandpatterns,asdistinguished
fromattemptstocatalogue,sidebyside,different‘varieties’ofneoliberalism,orto
assessdegreesofdivergencefromanidealtypeorputative(American)‘norm’.
Itfollowsthatitissomethingofafool’serrandtosetoutinsearchofanideal-
typicalor‘pure’formofneoliberalism,againstwhichvarietiesordeviationsmightbe
calibrated.Neoliberalizationcannotbemeasuredagainstaparadigmaticcase(forthere
hasbeenno‘original’,exclusivelypattern-settingtransition);andtoreducethis
qualitativeprocesstoamatterofdegreesisanalogoustothecategoryerrorof
measuringthe‘amount’(orlevel)ofmarketization(seeKrippner,2002;Peck,2017).
Rather,actuallyexistingneoliberalisms(canonly)existasconjuncturallyspecificforms
andthereforeintheplural—albeitasarelational,interconnected,mutuallyreferential
plurality.Hencetheapparentparadoxthatneoliberalismcanappeartobe‘alloverthe
place’,ifnotalmostomnipresent,whileatthesametimeitisfoundnowherein
‘undiluted’orreplicatedform.Asanalwayscompromised,discrepant,context-
dependent,contradictory,andshape-shiftingpresence,neoliberalismisfound—indeed,
canonlybefound—inanarrayrangeofgovernanceregimes,socialformations,political-
economicsettings,andconjuncturalarticulations.Analyticallyinconvenientasthismay
be,neoliberalismcannotbefixed.Asaresult,wemaintainthatadequateconceptions
ofneoliberalismmustnotonlybecontextualized,theymustbecross-contextualtoo,
spanningandaccountingforbothspatialdifferentiationandtemporalevolution;
18
accountingforthespecificitiesofembeddedformations,theorizationmustalsoreach
acrossamultiplicityoftheseformationsinbothtimeandspace;andtheymustbe
attentivetotheconstitutiveconnectionsandregulatoryrelaysbetweenactuallyexisting
formations,whicharethesourceofmore-than-localdynamicsandaplethoraof
citational,cumulative,andcombinatorialeffects.
Thenonlinear,polycentric,andpath-makingcourseofreal-world
neoliberalizationcannotbereducedtoasingularprocessofenactingapreordainedplan
orgranddesign.(Fromthebeginning,theideaofactuallyexistingneoliberalismwasan
attempttounderscorethiscondition.)Sinceneoliberalizationisnottrendingtowardsa
unified,‘advanced’,orglobalstate,itcharacteristicallyexhibitsaroilingdynamic,
markedbyserialpolicyfailureandimprovisedadaptation,andbycombativeand
combustibleencounterswithobstaclesandcounter-movements.Itsdeterminedyet
meanderingcoursethereforecannotbereducedtooneofmanifestdestiny.Instead,it
hasbeenforgedthroughawiderangeofopportunisticoffensives,path-testing
experiments,pragmaticworkarounds,andon-the-hoofimprovisations,whichinpractice
willdepartsignificantlyandrepeatedlyfromtheidealisticvisionsofneoliberaltheories,
evenasthesetheoriesretainatutelarysignificance,asguidepoststoapropercourse,if
notapracticallyattainabledestination.
Thisisonereasonwhyitcanbehelpfultoplace,indialecticaltension,the
conditionsofsituatedoractuallyexistingformationswithongoingprogramsof
neoliberalrestructuring,andindeedtodefineneoliberalismwithrespecttothewave-
likebutcontradictorydynamicsofthelatter(asarestructuringethosandprogrammatic
rationality),ratherthaninrelationtoanidealizedend-state,orsomesupposedly
ultimateform.Thezigzaggingcourseofneoliberalizationneverdescribesatidy
transitionfromregulatedtoderegulatedmarkets,orfrombiggovernmenttosmaller
states,butismorelikelytoresultinaplethoraofcontradictorygyrations,u-turns,and
midcourseadjustmentsaroundandacrosstheterrainsofsocialregulation,institutional
reinvention,andpoliticalcontestation.Inthisrespect,neoliberalismcanbeunderstood
tobebothacrisis-makingandacrisis-managingproject.Itisprone—andnotby
19
accidentbutbydesign—tointernallygeneratedcrisesofmalregulation,excess
marketization,andoverexploitation,justasithasdemonstratedcapacitiesforresilience
andreinvention,andanabilitytoexploitthesesamecrisesinthecourseof(andindeed
intheserviceof)itsownadaptivereinvention.
Analyticallyspeaking,thisisPolanyianterritory.AsDamienCahill(2012:115)
hasargued,‘thediscrepancybetweenneoliberaltheoryandpractice[liesin]thefailure
ofneoliberaltheorytorecognizetheinherentlysociallyembeddednatureofthe
capitalisteconomy’.Programsofneoliberalreformmaybeconsequentialintermsof
reshapingsocialreality,butthisdoesnotmeanthattheycandenyordefythisreality.
Thefactthatthesetransformativeprogramsareantagonisticallyembeddeddemands
thatattentionispaid,simultaneously,totransformativerationalitiesandprosaic
practice.Ontheirown,purelyabstractorideationalaccountsareinsufficient,butsoare
thoseresolutelyconcreteanalysesthatdetachsocialandinstitutionalspecificitiesfrom
widerfieldsofideologicalandinstitutionalreproduction.Eventhoughneoliberal
theoriesaredestinedalwaystobefrustrated,overandoveragaintheyhave
demonstratedacapacitytoinspire,direct,andprioritizeprogramsofsocioeconomic
transformationandstaterestructuring;theireffectistoinvokeaprogrammaticcourse
ofaction.(Thisissomethingthatthoseskepticalofcriticaltheoriesofneoliberalization
repeatedlymiss,intheircomplaintsaboutatendencytoexaggeratethepolitical-
economiccoherenceoftheprocess/project,whileunderestimatingtheinherent
‘messiness’ofsocialandinstitutionallife.Actuallyexistingneoliberalizationsare
dialogicallyconnectedwithwhatremainaspirational,frontal,andstrategicvisions,even
astheyareneverreducibletothem.)Hencetheneedtoholdthetheory(orstrong
discourse)ofneoliberalismindialecticaltensionwithanextant(andmoving)arrayof
actualoutcomes.Actuallyexistingneoliberalismsdonotexist,inthissense,
‘downstream’fromthefoundingideationaltextsorideologicalcommandingheights;
theirnecessarilyprosaicandsomewaywaywardexistencespeakstothewaysinwhich
neoliberalnostrumshavebeenrepeatedlyadjustedverymuchinconjunctionwiththe
vagariesofpractice,politicalopportunism,andchancediscovery,cominglingand
20
combiningwiththeirothers,evenastheyremainindialoguewithamatrixof
policymakingprinciples,receivedaxioms,andidealizedcommitments.Toinvoke
‘contradictions’hereisnotjustanexplanatoryget-outclause;itspeakstothecharacter
ofneoliberalizationasarealizedprocess.
Defininganddelimitingneoliberalizationcanneverbe‘quiteassimpleaslining
upalistofattributes[like]privatization,deregulationandthelimitedstate,andshowing
whetherornottheycorrespondtothecurrent“institutionalreality”ofstate’(Dean,
2012:75).Consistentwithitslogicofrestructuring,neoliberalizationactsonand
throughtheseinstitutionallandscapes;itisnotastaticneoliberalism.Consequently,
theorizingexclusivelywithinthedomainofconcretestateorsocialformsisnecessary,
butitisnotmethodologicallysufficient.Itmaybehelpfultorecallthatneoliberalism
shouldnotbepresumedtodisplayanincipientunityoremergentcoherence;butitis
alsoimportanttorecognizetheextenttowhichthehegemonicgripofneoliberal
ideologyismanifestintheformofsustainedpoliticalpressureandentrenchedstrategic
incentivesformarket-oriented,competitive,andvoluntaristmodesofgovernance,
basedontheprinciplesofdevolvedandoutsourcedresponsibility—workingineffectto
shapeanideologicallycircumscribedregulatorysolutionspace.Thisishow
neoliberalismframes,constrains,andchannelsthefieldofthepoliticallyvisibleand
tractable.Thepost-2008globalfinancialcrisiswasacaseinpoint:withinmonthsofthe
WallStreetcrash,thespectrumofpoliticallyacceptable(evenviable)policysolutions
collapsedintoafamiliarpackageoftaxcuts,austeritybudgeting,monetary
manipulation,devolvedfinancialdiscipline,andlight-touchintervention,whilerelatively
mainstreamoptionslikeTobintaxes,debtcancellation,grassrootsstimulus
programming,and(even)assertivereregulationofthebankingsectorwerepromptly
deemedbeyondthepale(seePecketal.,2010;PeckandWhiteside,2016).
Yettheneoliberalprojectvisualizesafuturethatcannotbeborn,evenasit
doggedlypursuesthepathofdismantlinganddisablingantitheticalsocialandstate
formations(includingcollectiveprovisioning,deliberativeplanningsystems,andregimes
ofprogressiveredistribution).Itmaygoalongwaytowardsdismantling‘Leviathan’,
21
whileneverapproachingthepromisedlandofmarketfreedoms.Onthecontrary,some
trajectoriesof‘late’neoliberalismmaybesystematicallypronetoitsveryownformsof
technocraticand(super)managerialbloat,suchthattheycometoresemblenotsomuch
anewLeviathanbut‘Behemoth’(seeChaudharyandChappe,2016).Thevagariousand
crisis-strewncourseofneoliberalizationinvariablytrimssharplyawayfromcertainforms
of‘statist’socialformations,evenasitsbranchingtrajectoriesdonotresemblearoyal
roadtofree-marketnirvana.Thisalsoaccountsforthefactthatneoliberalismhasnever
beenassociatedwithastableortendentialinstitutionalcore,butinsteadadaptsand
improviseswithinideologicalandfiscalparameters,routinelyresortingtochanneled
andfilteredformsofexperimentationandopportunism—governedbyaregimeof
socio-regulatoryselectivityfavoringmarket-basedandmarket-likestrategies,
supplementedwithanallowanceforcorporateandelitestatesofexception.Forthese
reasons,theprojectofneoliberalismcontinuestoevolve,bothasagoverningstrategy
andasapolicypackage,lurchingintoandthroughmomentsofcrisisandreinvention.
Thiscanbeseenasareflectionofitsownlimitations,frailties,andblindspots(suchas
tendenciesforshort-termismandspeculativeexcess,indifferencetowardsocialand
ecologicalexternalities),butalsoaproclivityforworkingaround,selectively
undermining,andtacticallytargetingsourcesofoppositionandresistance.
Thissaid,whiletheevolvinggeographicaldynamicsofneoliberalizationmaybe
complexandconjunctural,thisdoesnotmeanthattheyarechaotic,unprincipled,and
unpatterned.Tothecontrary,thelongarcofneoliberalintensificationsincethe1970s
hasbeenassociatedwitharegressivedeepeningandcumulativeembeddingofmarket-
orientednormsofgovernance,whichhaverecursivelyremadereality,ifnotexactlyin
theirownimage,inwaysthathavebecomemutuallycongruentonatransnationalscale.
Whatwehaveelsewhereexploredundertherubricofvariegatedneoliberalization(see
Brenneretal.,2010b)entailsmorethantheunrulyproliferation,orrandomsprawl,of
geoinstitutionaldifference,butresultsfromtheinterplayoftwomodalitiesofuneven
development.First,wehavearguedthatunevendevelopmentisanecessarycondition
ofneoliberalization:theearliest(state)projectsforneoliberalizationwerelaunched
22
underquiteparticularcircumstances(compare,forexample,Chilecirca1973withthe
UnitedStatescirca1980).Thesefrontalprogramsofrestructuringdisplayedanumber
familyresemblances(intermsofsharedrationales,techniques,andreformrepertoires),
butinasfarastheywerealsoprofoundlyreactionaryprojects,attacking,reforming,and
replacinganarrayof‘inherited’institutionsandsocialsettlements,theirrevealed
geographiesechoapath-shapingarrayof‘legacystruggles’withenduringconsequences
forthecourseandcharacterofsubsequentreformprograms.Theseandotherprojects
ofneoliberaltransformationconsequentlytookrootindifferentsoils,withimplications
forthesequencingofreforms,forthepatterningandoutcomeofsocialstruggles,for
politicalopportunismandstrategicexperimentation,andfortheconstruction,
consumption,andcirculationofpolicymodelsthathaveprovedtobeanythingbut
transitoryortrivial.Andsinceallsuchprojectsareultimately‘incompletable’,nomatter
howdeeplyinscribedormutuallyreferentialtheybecome,theresultinggeographiesare
nevertobecompletelywashedawayunderatideofconvergentdevelopment.
Second,whileneoliberalismcanonlyexist,inthissense,inunevenlydeveloped
form,itisalsonecessarytorecognizethattherehasbeen(inparallelwiththesemultiple
neoliberalizationsatthescaleofparticularsocialformations)anongoing
neoliberalizationofunevendevelopmentitself.Herewerefertotheconstitutionand
continualreconstitutionofmarket-orientedandcorporate-centricframeworksfor
macrospatialregulation,orwhatwehavecalledrule-regimes,whichgovernprocesses
ofregulatoryexperimentationandthecross-jurisdictionalmovementofpolicymodels
(Brenneretal.,2010b).Ifeachprogramofneoliberalreformiscontextuallyspecific,
thesedevelopmentsrefertothe(macroormeta)contextforthosecontexts,and
includethe‘constitutionalization’ofmarket-orientedrulesofthegame,notleast
throughaweboftreaties,accords,andsanctions;thebuild-outofsoftinfrastructures
forpolicylearningandexchange,accompaniedbythethickening,channeling,and
intensificationof(fast)policy‘transfers’;andthefinancializationandheightened
‘competitivity’ofinterjurisdictionalrelations,extendingtopatternedregimesoffiscal
23
disciplines,incentives,andmodesofgovernance(seeGillandCutler,2014;Duméniland
Lévy,2011;Kotz,2015;PeckandTheodore,2015).
Overtime,theseinterlinkedprocesses—concerningtheunevendevelopmentof
neoliberalizationontheonehandandtheneoliberalizationofunevendevelopmenton
theother—haveshapedameta-geographyofneoliberalismmarkednotbyincipient
homogenizationbutbycombinatorialintensificationacrossconjuncturalformations.
Thisshift,fromanemergentandarchipelagictoanintegratedandhegemonicpattern,
wehaveelsewherecharacterizedasacumulativemovementfrom‘disarticulated’to
‘deepening’neoliberalization(Brenneretal.,2010a).Thedisarticulatedneoliberalism(s)
ofthe1970sandearly1980smadeupanon-contiguousmapof‘local’transformations,
amongstwhichtherewashardlyasharedorsingulartemplate.Furtherroundsof
neoliberalizationhavebeenlayeredoverandacrossthispatchworkpattern,overtime
contributingtotheentrenchmentofawidelygeneralized,indeedtendentially
globalizing,market-disciplinaryoperatingenvironment,jointlyconstitutedwitha
plethoraofsubsequentneoliberalizations.Bothinprincipleandinpractice,these‘later’
neoliberalizationsarenolesscontext-andpath-dependentthantheirpredecessors,
evenastheyhavebeeninterdigitatedwithdifferentroundsofregulatory
experimentation,favoredpolicymodels,andmarketopportunity/pressure.Under
theseconditionsof‘deepening’neoliberalization,market-orientedregulatory
transformationshavebecomereflexivelyinterlinkedandinterpenetrated,asregimesof
meta-governancehavebeenvariouslyconsolidated,knittedtogether,shoredup,and
adapted.Torefertotheseasquasi-constitutionalsettlementsarguablyconfersupon
whatremaincontestedandcrisis-pronearrangementsanexaggerateddegreeof
institutionalstability,theperiodsincetheWallStreetcrashof2008seemingtoconfirm
boththeextenttowhichneoliberalorthodoxieshavebecomeentrenchedindominant
circuitsoffinancialandpoliticalpowerandtheapparentbrittlenessoftheseruling
schemesinthefaceofpersistentpolicyfailureandintensifyingpoliticaldiscontent.
Conclusion:redefinitions
24
Asweindicatedatthebeginningofthischapter,theworkingconceptofactuallyexisting
neoliberalismwasoriginallyformulatedasadeviceforgrapplingwiththeconfounding
complexitiesofneoliberalismasanunruly,polymorphic,anddiscrepantsocial
formation,asamodeofregulationwrappedin(self)delusionand(purposeful)
misrepresentation,andasanhistorical-geographicalprocess(re)producedthrough
unevendevelopment.Fromthispointofdeparture,thenotionofactuallyexisting
neoliberalismwouldsubsequentlycometoserveathreefoldanalyticalpurpose.First,it
calledattentiontothenecessary(butstillgenerative)discrepanciesbetween
neoliberalismasatutelarytheoryanditsevidentlyvariegatedpractice,betweenthe
utopianideologyofthefree-marketcounterrevolutionanditsearthlymanifestations,
andbetweentheprogrammaticambitionofthisfrontaldiscourseanditsfrustrated,
compromised,crisis-proneandyetrestlesslyexperimentalform.Second,it
problematizedthecomplex,contingent,andcontestedwaysinwhichneoliberal
restructuringstrategiesinteractwithpre-existingandcoexistingusesofspace,
institutionalconfigurations,andconstellationsofsociopoliticalpower.Andthird,it
underscoredthebasicclaimthatunevenspatialdevelopmenthasallalongbeenintegral
totheconditionsofexistenceandrelationaldynamicsofneoliberalizationasa
polymorphichistoricalprocess,andnotmerelyasourceofcontingentvariationor
downstream‘aftereffects’.Neoliberalizationwasneveraboutthestraightforward
implementationofaprescribedtemplateorpolicymakingfix;itwasconstructed
conjuncturally,throughsituatedstrugglesandconflicts,andithasfunctioned,
adaptively,throughtrial-and-errorexperimentation,moreoftenthannotunder
conditionsofaggravatedstress,politicalconflict,oroutrightcrisis,suchthatendemic
policyfailure,emergencygovernance,andpathfindingexplorationhavebecome
normalizedconditions,foralloftheirdysfunctionalanddisruptiveconsequences.
Itfollowsthatcriticalanalysesofneoliberalism,neoliberalization,andneoliberal
hegemonymustbeattentivetotheconstitutiveandstructuringforcesofcombinedand
unevendevelopment—notasmerevariationfoundaftersomeoriginating,singular
25
moment,butasa‘bakedin’condition.Neoliberalismcanonlyexistinconjunctural
form(s),anditcanonlybeproperlyunderstoodbywayofcross-conjuncturalanalysis:in
thiscontext,itisnecessary,butnotentirelysufficient,totheorizefromsitesof
divergenceordiscrepancy(recognizingthatthiscanserveasaconstructiveantidoteto
paradigmaticorcentrictheorizing);theorizationmustalsoextendacrossthesesitesof
divergenceordiscrepancy(eachandeverysiteofactuallyexistingneoliberalization
displayingdifferences,bothfromthetextbookvisionandfromotheractuallyexisting
cases,thesebeingdifferencesneverthelessmade‘inconnection’,andovertime,
throughincreasinglyintenseformsofinterconnection).Thesearethegroundsonwhich
wehavemadethecasethatcriticalstudiesofneoliberalismmustnotonlybe
contextualized,forinstancethroughtherecognitionof‘local’conditionsanddistinctive
hybrids;theymustalsoattendtothemore-then-the-sum-of-the-partscontextofthose
particularcontexts,andtothewiderpatterningofrestructuringdynamicsexhibited
acrosscases,sites,andconjunctures.
Furthermore,becauseneoliberalismisdestinedtoremainathwartedtotality
andnever-to-be-realizeduniversal,dwellinginatypicallyantagonisticfashionwithits
others,thesecriticalinvestigationsmustalwaysextendintoextra-neoliberalterrains,to
takeaccountofthecharacterofthevolatilehybridsthatarethe(oftenunwilling)hosts
for,andvictimsof,programsofneoliberaltransformation.Thedynamicmappingof
thesemongrelformationsandtheconnectiverelationsbetweenthem—thatis,tracing
theunevenspatialdevelopmentofneoliberalizationamongstitsothers—holdsthekey
tounderstandinghowneoliberalismhasbeenreproduced,systematically,throughand
acrossawiderangeofdiscrepantformations.Itfollowsthatcriticalanalysesof
neoliberalism,neoliberalization,andneoliberalhegemonymustalsoseektoencompass
twoprincipalarcsofdifference—onetemporal,theotherspatial.Inthetemporal
domain,theseanalysesshouldtakeaccountofboththedestructive(orroll-back)
momentsofneoliberalizationanditscreative(orroll-out)moments,jointlyconstituted
asthesehavesooftenbecome.Inthespatialdomain,theyshouldattendtothe
26
geographicalvariegationthatisrevealedacrosstheprocesses,projects,andpracticesof
neoliberalization,andtowhatarealwaysmovingterrainsoftransformation.
Whileitissometimes(ab)usedinsuchways,itshouldbeclearnowthatthe
conceptofneoliberalismisnotreallyconduciveeithertoshorthandortobroad-brush
application.Rather,processualunderstandingsofneoliberalization,marriedtothe
notionofactuallyexistingneoliberalismasamarkerof(inescapable)uneven
development,enabletheongoingproblematizationofneoliberalism,boththeoretically
andpolitically.Inthiscontext,thedecidedlyunlovedandinelegant‘rascalconcept’,
neoliberalismmightstillbetheleast-badformulationthatwehavetodescribethe
hegemonicspacethatStuartHalloncecalledthe‘market-forcesconjuncture’,
acknowledgingthatthis‘inadequateword[remains]theonlyonewehavefor
characterisingwhatdefinesthewholearc’(HallandMassey,2010:66).Ifneoliberalism
defines,atleastprovisionally,apoliticalandanalyticalproblemspace,shapedasmuch
byenduringcontradictionsasbyincipientlogics,theconjuncturalunderstandingof
actuallyexistingneoliberalismofferedherecarrieswithitanactivepresumptionagainst
foreclosure.Evenasneoliberalismmayhavecometodominatesomanyoftheterrains
ofsocialstruggle,itcanneverfullymonopolizethoseterrains;alternativesocialand
institutionalarrangementsarebothco-presentandomnipresent,eveniftheyhavebeen
subjecttosubordinationandsuppression.Furthermore,theverygeographical
unevennessofthisterrainmeansthatthepotentialfortranscendenceissimilarlyever-
present,ifintrinsicallyunpredictableinform,timing,andeffect(seeSader,2011).As
StuartHall(2011:727)alwaysmaintained,thisisonereasonwhyoursocialtheories,
likehistoryitself,mustretain‘anopenhorizontowardsthefuture’.
27
ReferencesBan,Cornel(2016)RulingIdeas:HowGlobalNeoliberalismGoesLocal.Oxford:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Bourdieu,Pierre(1998)ActsofResistance.Cambridge:Polity.
Bowman,Sam(2016)‘Comingoutasneoliberals’,AdamSmithInstitute,October11,availableat:http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/coming-out-as-neoliberals.
Brenner,Neil,Peck,JamieandTheodore,Nik(2010a)‘Afterneoliberalization?’Globalizations,7(3):327-45.
Brenner,Neil,Peck,JamieandTheodore,Nik(2010b)‘Variegatedneoliberalization:geographies,modalities,pathways’,GlobalNetworks,10(2):1-41.
Brenner,Neil,Peck,JamieandTheodore,Nik(2014)‘Newconstitutionalismandvariegatedneo-liberalization’,inStephenGillandA.ClaireCutler(eds.)NewConstitutionalismandWorldOrder.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.126-42.
Brenner,NeilandTheodore,Nik(2002a)‘Citiesandthegeographiesof“actuallyexistingneoliberalism”’,Antipode,34(3):349-79.
Brenner,NeilandTheodore,Nik(eds.)(2002b)SpacesofNeoliberalism:UrbanRestructuringinNorthAmericaandWesternEurope.Oxford:Blackwell.
Brown,Wendy(2015)Undoingthedemos:neoliberalism’sstealthrevolution.NewYork:Zone.
Cahill,Damien(2012)‘Theembeddedneoliberaleconomy’,inDamienCahill,LindyEdwardsandFrankStilwell(eds.)Neoliberalism:Beyondthefreemarket.Cheltenham:EdwardElgar,pp.110-27.
Chaudhary,AjaySinghandChappe,Raphaële(2016)‘Thesupermanagerialreich’,LosAngelesReviewofBooks,November7,availableathttps://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-supermanagerial-reich/.
Clarke,John(2008)‘Livingwith/inandwithoutneo-liberalism’,Focaal,51:135–47.
Dean,Mitchell(2012).‘Freeeconomy,strongstate’,inDamienCahill,LindyEdwardsandFrankStilwell(eds.)Neoliberalism:Beyondthefreemarket.Cheltenham:EdwardElgar,pp.69-89.
Duménil,GérardandLévy,Dominique(2011)TheCrisisofNeoliberalism.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Ferguson,James(2010)‘Theusesofneoliberalism’,Antipode,41(1):166-84.
28
Fraser,Nancy(2017)‘Theendofprogressiveneoliberalism’,Dissent,January2,availableathttps://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/progressive-neoliberalism-reactionary-populism-nancy-fraser.
Gill,StephenandCutler,A.Claire(2014)(eds.)NewConstitutionalismandWorldOrder.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Gledhill,John(2004)‘Neoliberalism’,inDavidNugentandJoanVincent(eds.)ACompaniontotheAnthropologyofPolitics.Oxford:Blackwell,pp.332-48.
Goldstein,DanielM.(2012)‘Decolonialising“actuallyexistingneoliberalism”’,SocialAnthropology/AnthropologieSociale,20(3),304-9.
Hall,Stuart(2003)‘NewLabour’sdouble-shuffle’,Soundings,24:10-24.
Hall,Stuart(2011)‘Theneo-liberalrevolution’,CulturalStudies,25(6):705–28.
Hall,StuartandMassey,Doreen(2010)‘Interpretingthecrisis’,Soundings,44:57-71.
Hilgers,Mathieu(2012)‘Thehistoricityoftheneoliberalstate’,SocialAnthropology/AnthropologieSociale,20(1):80–94.
Kotz,D.M.(2015)TheRiseandFallofNeoliberalCapitalism.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Krippner,GretaR.(2002)‘Theelusivemarket:embeddednessandtheparadigmofeconomicsociology’,TheoryandSociety30(6):775–810.
LeGalès,Patrick(2016)‘Neoliberalismandurbanchange:stretchingagoodideatoofar?’Territory,PoliticsandGovernance,4(2):1–19.
Naím,Moises(2000)‘WashingtonconsensusorWashingtonconfusion?’ForeignPolicy,118:87-103.
Peck,Jamie(2010)ConstructionsofNeoliberalReason.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Peck,Jamie(2013)‘Explaining(with)neoliberalism’,Territory,Politics,Governance,1(2):132–57.
Peck,Jamie(2017)‘Transatlanticcity,part1:conjuncturalurbanism’,UrbanStudies,54(1),3-40.
Peck,Jamie(2018)‘Preface’,thisvolume.
Peck,Jamie,Theodore,Nik(2015)FastPolicy:ExperimentalStatecraftattheThresholdsofNeoliberalism.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.
Peck,Jamie,Theodore,NikandBrenner,Neil(2009)‘Neoliberalurbanism:models,moments,andmutations’,SAISReviewofInternationalAffairs,29(1):49-66.
Peck,Jamie,Theodore,NikandBrenner,Neil(2010)‘Postneoliberalismanditsmalcontents’,Antipode,41(1):94-116.
Peck,JamieandTickell,Adam(2002)‘Neoliberalizingspace’,Antipode,34(3):380-404.
29
Peck,JamieandWhiteside,Heather(2016)‘FinancializingDetroit’,EconomicGeography,92(3):235-68.
Pirie,Madsen(2014)‘Lookingattheworldthroughneo-liberaleyes’,AdamSmithInstitute,August20,availableat:http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/thinkpieces/looking-at-the-world-through-neo-liberal-eyes-2.
Sader,E.(2011)TheNewMole.London:Verso.
Vengopal,Rajesh(2015)‘Neoliberalismasaconcept’,EconomyandSociety,44(2):165–87.
