The social market economy was a political tool, not a closed economic theory.

Evidence

The fact that the social market economy was first and foremost a tool to attain a certain political objective, rather than a scientific theory per se, reveals why there is (still) no closed theory of the social market economy comparable to the older elaborate ordoliberal system. Aims and objectives were developed step by step in response to concrete political developments, rather than according to logical extrapolations and derivations from ordoliberal theory. Consequently, these aims and objectives display to a large extent flexibility and adaptability toward changing economic, political, and sociocultural conditions in society. Thus, it was because of the evolutionary character of Müller-Armack’s approach that over the years tensions would arise relative to the dogmatic and normative character of ordoliberal theory in practice. “Whilst the ordoliberal concept provides a concrete program for the political caste, Müller-Armack’s concept of Social Market Economy can, in a nutshell, be understood as a methodical principle” (Starbatty 1986, 16). — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 554

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Clarifies the central distinction between MĂĽller-Armack’s methodical social market economy and ordoliberalism’s concrete programmatic theory.
  • XREF: connects to: Market economies require deliberate political construction, not natural emergence — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 364; Markets are constructed artifacts requiring sustained political maintenance, not spontaneous phenomena. — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 773; Orthodox economists’ model-legitimacy criterion is political, not epistemic. — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 793 (+2 more)

Broader Connections