Ordoliberal ‘economic constitution’ meant a normative vision, not a founding legal document.

Evidence

Used first by Eucken and Böhm in the 1930s, the concept of an economic constitution had two meanings. It was both descriptive of a given so­cio­log­i­cal real­ity and normative of a desired ­legal order. Ordoliberals did not mean “economic constitution” primarily in the literal form nor did they assume that it had to be embodied in a founding ­legal document. The fact explains why Böhm gave no par­tic­u­lar attention to the debates about the West German Basic Law in the 1940s. In the minds of neoliberals, the Basic Law was not an “economic constitution” ­because it did not embody a decision establishing a specific economic order, but instead was the outcome of compromise between more liberal and social demo­cratic positions. What was necessary for a genuine economic constitution was the unity of vision for an economic order, as defined first against the compromises of the Weimar Republic. — Quinn Slobodian, Globalists, 696

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Precise definition of ‘economic constitution’ as a two-sided descriptive/normative concept rather than a literal founding text — clarifies an easily misunderstood term.
  • XREF: Relevant to the Grundgesetz/Basic Law historiography and to debates over whether constitutions encode economic orders. — connects to: Ordoliberals saw the economic constitution as imposed by deliberate political will from above — Quinn Slobodian, Globalists: The End of Empire and the…, 697; The economic order is a human creation and therefore changeable, not natural law — Clara E. Mattei, Escape from Capitalism: An Intervention, 41; Ordoliberal constitutions require active communal support, not mere state imposition — Mark Blyth, Austerity: The History of a Dangerous…, 363 (+1 more)

Broader Connections