Early neoliberals steered boom policy while Keynesians amended busts

Evidence

Early neoliberal forms of macro analysis were fundamentally different to that of Keynes’s General Theory and to other spin-offs of the new discipline at the time, for example that of Schumpeter. Keynes’s focus on crisis amendment—the “bust” side of the business cycle—is diametrically opposed to how early neoliberals approached business cycles. For them, the policies steering the boom are what matters. Intervention needs to act on the framework for growth, and not be based on urgent social needs when the crisis has hit. At the same time, they also acknowledged some of Keynes’s ideas, particularly the insight that a purely monetary policy to prevent deflation would not be enough in cases of deep depression. The “how” of the policy then mattered and was disputed. — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 394

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects to the book’s broader project of fracturing the monolith ‘neoliberalism’ — early figures already had nuanced, partly Keynes-engaged positions. — connects to: Neoliberal ideas were displaced by Keynesianism only briefly — Mark Blyth, Austerity: The History of a Dangerous
, 157; Early French neoliberals drew simultaneously on Keynes, Hayek, Wicksell, and Myrdal — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 381; The Reagan-Thatcher era redistributed wealth from poor to rich rather than abandoning Keynesianism — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist
, 601 (+4 more)

Broader Connections