Neoliberalism triumphed through political arguments against redistribution, not market-efficiency claims

Evidence

The success of neoliberalism was not predicated merely on its arguments for the superior efficiency of markets, or its challenges to the economics of socialist planning. Rather, neoliberals pioneered a series of political arguments about the dangers of wealth redistribution, interference with the market and mass participation in politics, especially in the post-colony, that helped to legitimise austerity and the crushing of Third Worldist demands for global wealth redistribution. … These arguments were taken up enthusiastically by the humanitarians of LSF. — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 437

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the broader neoliberal-austerity and market-ethics literature the reader is studying; also to the ‘ethics of markets’ debate framing. — connects to: Neoliberal economists advocated private credit to deliver inclusion without wealth redistribution — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 259; Neoliberalism advanced a political, not merely economic, case for the competitive market — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 34; Neoliberal economics rose to dominance through a policy vacuum, not popularity — Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 119 (+5 more)
• SEED: Angle: the humanitarian movement as an ideological transmission belt that moved right-wing austerity themes onto the political left — could be an essay on how moral prestige launders economic policy.

Broader Connections

• Neoliberal theories succeed as policy rhetoric despite having scant evidence #corroborates (0.80) — Mark Blyth, Austerity, 425