Neoliberals favored deterrent poor-relief because generous dole undermined market discipline

Evidence

At the Walter Lippmann Colloquium, Hayek had laid out two models of relief: one gives the unemployed worker a dole at the level of his former wage; ‘the other is designed on the model of the poor law in England’. The former threatened to trespass on the margins of neoliberal freedom, making workers unwilling to submit to the market and move for work. Only the deterrence of the latter could reconcile relief with a market-pricing mechanism. For all their criticisms of the paternalism of the welfare state, the neoliberals believed that those destitute few who were eligible for state relief had forfeited their independence, their personal responsibility – and possibly their freedom too. — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 218

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies that early neoliberal ‘freedom’ was explicitly conditional on market participation, so relief recipients forfeited it.
• XREF: Echoes the tone of Milgrom on market-enabling institutions and the reader’s work on sacrifice, since forfeiture of freedom is framed as a quasi-moral price. — connects to: American conservatives blamed poverty on personal failings while favoring free competition — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 1587; Neoliberals conditioned self-government on accepting market discipline — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 297; Neoliberalism reversed the state’s protective role toward shielding markets — Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s…, 745 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Neoliberals conditioned self-government on accepting market discipline #corroborates (0.85) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 297
• Neoliberalism reversed the state’s protective role toward shielding markets #expands (0.75) — Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos, 745