Neoliberals opposed colonial state planning as a politicisation of the economy

Evidence

For the Fabians, colonial development was too important to be left to the market; the benevolent hand of the state was necessary to secure order and prepare colonial subjects for the demands of an efficient modern economy. For the neoliberals, in contrast, mid-twentieth-century colonial policy represented a dangerous step away from the liberalism and free trade of the earlier British Empire. In the Fabian commitment to economic planning, they saw the politicisation of the economy and a cause of international friction and imperialist conflict. — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 240

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s work distinguishing neoliberalism from classical liberalism — the colonial angle sharpens a definition common in debates over market ethics. — connects to: Postwar reconstructionists reversed the priority of fiscal economy over political aims — Clara E. Mattei, Escape from Capitalism, 181; Neoliberals rejected planning yet immediately designed world-scale institutional blueprints. — Quinn Slobodian, Globalists: The End of Empire and the…, 398; Neoliberals feared postcolonial economic planning would erode property-rights separation — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 279 (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• Neoliberals argued that politicizing the economy, not capitalism, caused imperialism. #expands (0.85) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 434
• Neoliberals traced postcolonial authoritarianism to the colonial planning they inherited #corroborates (0.78) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 240
• Neoliberal critique deployed a two-pronged argument against planning #expands (0.75) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1367
• Neoliberals feared colonial anti-imperialism would morph into anti-capitalism #complicates (0.72) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 251