Neoliberals rejected planning yet immediately designed world-scale institutional blueprints.

Evidence

In 1937 Walter Lipp­mann wrote that “the Good Society has no architectural design. ­There are no blueprints.” He leaned heavi­ly on the work of Mises and Hayek, who had written two years earlier that “we are not intellectually equipped to improve the working of our economic system by ‘planning.’ ” Ironically, the response of the neoliberals to this insight was to immediately begin creating designs, blueprints, and plans, not at the scale of the nation but at the scale of the region and the world. The federation plans of Hayek, Robbins, and Mises ­were designed as prophylaxis—­using institutions to suppress the emergence of special interest demands by design. One of the most critical special interests to suppress was the nation itself. — Quinn Slobodian, Globalists, 398

Categorization

  • QUESTION: The contradiction — anti-planning rhetoric alongside enthusiastic blueprinting — invites deeper exploration of how the two were reconciled theoretically.
  • XREF: This irony parallels the broader tension in neoliberalism between anti-intervention rhetoric and active state-building, relevant to the reader’s austerity/neoliberalism thread. — connects to: Early neoliberals rejected laissez-faire and wanted strong state action; Neoliberal critique deployed a two-pronged argument against planning — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 1367; Early neoliberalism rejected laissez-faire in favor of a state-built competitive order. — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 365 (+5 more)

Broader Connections