Introduction

The term neoliberalismSupply Side Economics Full Description:Supply-Side Economics posits that production (supply) is the key to economic prosperity. Proponents argue that by reducing the “burden” of taxes on the wealthy and removing regulatory barriers for corporations, investment will increase, creating jobs and expanding the economy. Key Policies: Tax Cuts: Specifically for high-income earners and corporations, under the premise that this releases capital for investment. Deregulation: Removing environmental, labor, and safety protections to lower the cost of doing business. Critical Perspective:Historical analysis suggests that supply-side policies rarely lead to the promised broad-based prosperity. Instead, they often result in massive budget deficits (starving the state of revenue) and a dramatic concentration of wealth at the top. Critics argue the “trickle-down” effect is a myth used to justify the upward redistribution of wealth. emerged in the mid-20th century as an effort to revive and revise classical liberalism in the face of economic crises and totalitarian regimes.  Early neoliberals sought a “third way” between laissez-faire capitalism and state socialism, combining belief in free markets with a framework of legal and social institutions. 

A seminal moment came at the 1938 Walter Lippmann Colloquium in Paris, where German economist Alexander Rüstow and others coined “neoliberalism” to signify an active, rule-based market economy (rather than the old laissez-faire model) .  In practice this meant free trade and private enterprise, but with a role for the state to maintain competition and social cohesion. 

As one study notes, “ordoliberal ideals became the foundation” of West Germany’s postwar Soziale Marktwirtschaft (social market economySocial Market Economy Full Description:An economic model combining free-market capitalism with social policies to establish fair competition and a welfare state. It was the “Third Way” designed to provide the prosperity of capitalism while blunting the appeal of socialism among the working class. The Social Market Economy rejects both the laissez-faire capitalism of the 19th century and the command economy of the Soviet bloc. The state actively intervenes to prevent monopolies and provide a robust social safety net (pensions, healthcare, unemployment benefits), arguing that the market must serve society, not just capital. Critical Perspective:Structurally, this system was a Cold War weapon. It was designed to sedate the labor movement, offering workers a “slice of the pie” to prevent radical political organizing. By integrating unions into corporate decision-making, the state effectively neutralized class struggle, transforming the working class into stakeholders in the capitalist system rather than revolutionaries. Further Reading Rising from the Ruins: The Anatomy of the Wirtschaftswunder The Adenauer Era: Integration, Stability, and the Invention of “Chancellor Democracy” The Great Silence: Collective Amnesia and the Legacy of the Holocaust Wiedergutmachung: The Luxembourg Agreement and the “Entry Ticket” to the West The Long Road Home: The Return of the POWs and the Visit to Moscow Wandel durch Annäherung: Willy Brandt, Ostpolitik, and the Silent Revolution 1968 and the Revolt Against the Fathers The Americanization of the Bonn Republic: Coca-Cola and Rock ‘n’ Roll The German Autumn: The Red Army Faction and the Crisis of 1977 From Crisis to Kohl: Stagnation, the Greens, and the End of the Bonn Republic ) .  Even early on, though, there were tensions: founders of the Freiburg School (Walter Eucken, Franz Böhm) rejected the label neoliberalism as used by others , underscoring a split between German ordoliberals and the Anglo-American variety.

In the 1930s and 1940s, thinkers such as Friedrich von Mises and F. A. Hayek (from the Austrian School) and Wilhelm Röpke and Alexander Rüstow (from the German ordoliberals) developed ideas to counter both Nazi corporatism and Soviet central planning.  Hayek’s famous critique, The Road to Serfdom (1944), warned that extensive central planning leads “inevitably” to a loss of freedom and tyranny . 

He argued that both fascism and socialism share the same roots in government-controlled economies: collectivist planning empowers the state over the individual, whether under Hitler or StalinStalin Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (18 December 1878 – 5 March 1953) was a Soviet politician, dictator and revolutionary who led the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in 1953. Read More .  In other words, Hayek viewed totalitarian and collectivist regimes as diverging paths of the same statist logic. 

His work galvanized anti-totalitarian liberals in Britain and the U.S., and became a standard reference for later neoliberals.  At roughly the same time, Rüstow and Röpke in Germany and Rougier in France were developing “neo”-liberal theories that rejected laissez-faire’s excesses while preserving market competition. 

Röpke, for example, conceded that a market economy could be “disruptive and inhumane” unless guided by social and moral norms; he therefore advocated a more active state as rule-maker and enforcer of competition and social security .  Yet even Röpke’s humanism had limits: in 1964 he infamously justified South African apartheidApartheid Full Description: An Afrikaans word meaning “apartness.” It refers to the system of institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination that governed South Africa. It was a totalizing legal framework that dictated where people could live, work, and travel based on their racial classification. Apartheid was not merely social prejudice; it was a sophisticated economic and legal machine designed to maintain white minority rule. It involved the complete spatial separation of the races, the banning of mixed marriages, and the denial of voting rights to the black majority. Critical Perspective:Critically, Apartheid was a system of racial capitalism. Its primary function was to secure a steady supply of cheap, compliant labor for the white-owned mines and farms. By keeping the black population uneducated, disenfranchised, and restricted to specific areas, the state ensured that the immense wealth generated by the country’s resources flowed exclusively to the white minority and international investors. on racialized grounds, claiming Black South Africans were of a “completely different type and level of civilization” and insisting that “white supremacy had to persist” in South Africa .

1940s–1960s: The Mont Pèlerin Society and the Cold War

After World War II, neoliberal ideas were organized into an international intellectual network.  In April 1947 Friedrich Hayek convened a conference at Mont Pèlerin, Switzerland, bringing together nearly 40 scholars to defend liberalism against “collectivism” and monopoly .  Participants included Ludwig von Mises, Karl Popper, Karl J. L. Popper, and a young Milton Friedman, among others . 

This meeting founded the Mont Pèlerin Society (MPS), which became the core “thought collective” of neoliberalism.  (Membership later expanded to include American conservatives and libertarians such as Frank Knight, George Stigler, and James Buchanan .) The society’s agenda was explicitly anti-socialist and anti-totalitarian: members agreed that only a free-market economy protected individual liberty. 

As Hayek himself wrote, the “abandonment of individualism” leads inevitably to dictatorship and serfdom .  The MPS met regularly and coordinated publications and lectures, laying the groundwork for a global pro-market movement.  Prominent neoliberals of this era also included Karl Popper and Henry Simons, and they were allied with Cold War–era conservative networks (bankers, business conservatives, and anti-communist politicians) to counter Keynesian and socialist influences in Western democracies.

In the German context, the ordoliberals translated neoliberal theory into policy.  Economists such as Walter Eucken, Franz Böhm, Alexander Rüstow and Wilhelm Röpke (often called the Freiburg School) helped design West Germany’s Soziale Marktwirtschaft, which combined free markets with social safeguards.  Ordoliberalism emphasized competition law and a social safety net; it led to the Wirtschaftswunder of the 1950s . 

As Eucken noted, unfettered markets required a strong constitutional order to function well.  In fact, Alexander Rüstow (one of its founders) had coined “neoliberalism” in 1938, though by the 1950s ordoliberals distanced themselves from the Anglo-American meaning of the term . 

Wilhelm Röpke, who helped advise Chancellor Adenauer and Ludwig Erhard on currency reform, became a public figure for the social market concept .  He argued, contra Keynes, that Western economies needed fiscal reflation to combat depression , yet he also insisted on a decentralized order and a measure of welfare to mitigate capitalism’s harshness .  (Röpke even envisioned “economic humanism” with Catholic social influences, although his racial views on apartheid starkly contradicted any egalitarian principles .)

Meanwhile in the United States, neoliberalism grew through academia and policy debates.  Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago emerged as the leading American neoliberal economist.  In Capitalism and Freedom (1962) Friedman argued that competitive markets were not only efficient but morally essential to achieve “economic freedom,” a precondition for political freedom .  He advocated policies such as low taxes, free trade, deregulationDeregulation Full Description:The systematic removal or simplification of government rules and regulations that constrain business activity. Framed as “cutting red tape” to unleash innovation, it involves stripping away protections for workers, consumers, and the environment. Deregulation is a primary tool of neoliberal policy. It targets everything from financial oversight (allowing banks to take bigger risks) to safety standards and environmental laws. The argument is that regulations increase costs and stifle competition. Critical Perspective:History has shown that deregulation often leads to corporate excess, monopoly power, and systemic instability. The removal of financial guardrails directly contributed to major economic collapses. Furthermore, it represents a transfer of power from the democratic state (which creates regulations) to private corporations (who are freed from accountability).
Read more, and sound money (e.g. anti-inflation monetarismMonetarism Monetarism is the economic school of thought associated with Milton Friedman, which rose to dominance as a counter to Keynesian economics. It posits that inflation is always a monetary phenomenon and that the government’s role should be limited to managing the currency rather than stimulating demand. Key Mechanisms: Inflation Targeting: Using interest rates to keep inflation low, even if high interest rates cause recession or unemployment. Fiscal Restraint: Opposing government deficit spending to boost the economy during downturns. Critical Perspective:Critics argue that monetarism breaks the post-war social contract. By prioritizing “sound money” and low inflation above all else, monetarist policies often induce deliberately high unemployment to discipline the labor force and suppress wages. It represents a technical solution to political problems, removing economic policy from democratic accountability. ). 

Many of Friedman’s proposals would later be put into practice by politicians.  In parallel, James M. Buchanan and Gordon Tullock developed public choice theory in the 1960s, applying the tools of economics to politics.  Buchanan in particular contended that individual self-interest also drives voters and politicians, so unfettered democracy could threaten property rights and fiscal balance. 

He thus argued for constitutional constraints (like balanced-budget rules) to protect market outcomes.  (Buchanan joined the MPS and even served as its president in the 1980s .)  Collectively, the Chicago School (Friedman, George Stigler, Gary Becker, et al.), the Virginia School (Buchanan, Tullock), and continuing Austrian scholars (Mises until 1969 and Hayek’s later writings) formed the core of neoliberal economics in the postwar decades.  Their intellectual projects coalesced around free-market principles, challenging New Deal–style Keynesian welfare policies and advocating limits on government intervention.

Neoliberalism and Competing Ideologies

From the start, neoliberals defined themselves against other ideologies.  They held that state socialism (central planning) was a path to dictatorship, as Hayek explicitly argued .  Fascist corporatism in Italy and Nazism in Germany were also seen as deviations of state control – not true free markets – and thus as kin to socialism in their consequences. 

Conversely, neoliberals embraced liberal democracy in principle, but with caveats: many argued that democratic politics must be “disciplined” by constitutional and market rules to prevent majoritarian excess.  James Buchanan wrote that a free society required rules (often absolute or unanimous consent rules) that ordinary politics cannot easily alter. 

Neoliberals also developed a skeptical view of welfare rights and social democrats.  As historian Jessica Whyte shows, mid-century neoliberals recast the language of human rights: they saw demands for welfare or national self-determinationSelf-Determination Full Description:Self-Determination became the rallying cry for anti-colonial movements worldwide. While enshrined in the UN Charter, its application was initially fiercely contested. Colonial powers argued it did not apply to their imperial possessions, while independence movements used the UN’s own language to demand the end of empire. Critical Perspective:There is a fundamental tension in the UN’s history regarding this term. While the organization theoretically supported freedom, its most powerful members were often actively fighting brutal wars to suppress self-determination movements in their colonies. The realization of this right was not granted by the UN, but seized by colonized peoples through struggle. as threats to “civilisation,” and instead framed human rights in ways that protected capital and order.  In other words, liberal-democratic values were often subordinated to property rights in neoliberal thought.

Neoliberal economists likewise became vocal critics of Keynesian economicsKeynesian Economics Full Description:The dominant economic consensus of the post-war era which argued that the government had a duty to intervene in the economy to maintain full employment and manage demand. Neoliberalism defined itself primarily as a reaction against and a dismantling of this system. Keynesian Economics underpinned the “Golden Age” of capitalism and the welfare state. It operated on the belief that unregulated markets were prone to collapse and that the state must act as a counterbalance—spending money during recessions and taxing during booms—to ensure social stability and public welfare. Critical Perspective:From the neoliberal viewpoint, Keynesianism was a slippery slope to totalitarianism. However, critics argue the dismantling of this consensus broke the social contract between capital and labor. By abandoning the commitment to full employment and social safety nets, the state abdicated its responsibility to its citizens, prioritizing the health of the currency over the health of the population.
Read more by the 1960s.  Friedman’s monetarism challenged the Phillips-curve approach to inflation and unemployment: he argued inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, not a mere side-effect of demand-management.  The Keynesian project of active fiscal stimulus was derided as dangerous to price stability. 

In short, neoliberals opposed the postwar welfare consensus: they wanted lower taxes, balanced budgets, and open markets, whereas KeynesianismKeynesianism Full Description:Keynesianism emerged as a direct response to the failure of classical economics to explain or fix the depression. It posits that the “invisible hand” of the market is insufficient during a downturn because of a lack of aggregate demand. Therefore, the state must step in as the “spender of last resort,” borrowing money to fund public works and social programs. Critical Perspective:Structurally, this represented a fundamental shift in the role of the state—from a passive observer to an active manager of capitalism. It was essentially a project to save capitalism from its own contradictions, using public funds to prevent the kind of total social collapse that often leads to revolution. favored government spending, regulation, and inflationary policy.  These intellectual battles often mirrored political struggle: by the 1970s, neoliberalism became an opposition to the “big government” Keynesian model that had dominated Western democracies.

Authoritarian Tolerance and Colonial Contexts

An key aspect of neoliberalism’s history is its accommodation – or sometimes support – of authoritarian regimes.  The best-known case is Chile under Pinochet.  From the 1950s onward, U.S.-trained neoliberal economists (the “Chicago Boys”) provided economic blueprints for Chile’s military juntaJunta Full Description: A military or political group that rules a country after taking power by force. These military councils suspended constitutions, dissolved congresses, and banned political parties, claiming to act as “guardians” of the nation against internal corruption and subversion. A Junta is the administrative body of a military dictatorship. In the Southern Cone, these were often composed of the heads of the different branches of the armed forces (Army, Navy, Air Force). They justified their seizure of power as a “state of exception” necessary to restore order, presenting themselves as apolitical technocrats saving the nation from the chaos of democracy. Critical Perspective:The Junta represents the militarization of politics. By treating the governance of a nation like a military operation, these regimes viewed distinct political opinions not as healthy democratic debate, but as insubordination or treason to be court-martialed. It replaced the messy consensus-building of democracy with the rigid hierarchy of the barracks. (1973–90).  They pushed rapid privatizationPrivatization Full Description:The transfer of ownership, property, or business from the government to the private sector. It involves selling off public assets—such as water, rail, energy, and housing—turning shared public goods into commodities for profit. Privatization is based on the neoliberal assumption that the private sector is inherently more efficient than the public sector. Governments sell off state-owned enterprises to private investors, often at discounted rates, arguing that the profit motive will drive better service and lower costs. Critical Perspective:Critics view privatization as the “enclosure of the commons.” It frequently leads to higher prices for essential services, as private companies prioritize shareholder returns over public access. It also hollows out the state, stripping it of its capacity to act and leaving citizens at the mercy of private monopolies for their basic needs (like water or electricity).
Read more, deregulation, and social spending cuts, and Friedman himself visited Chile multiple times (notably sponsoring the privatization of social security). 

The ‘Miracle’ of Chile story became a neoliberal rallying cry, even as critics (Naomi Klein and others) highlight the regime’s brutality.  Similarly, some ordoliberals and conservatives in Europe maintained ties with Latin American right-wing dictatorships during the Cold War (Spain under Franco or Portugal’s Salazar, for example).  In the British and U.S. conservative sphere, many economic liberals downplayed or rationalized racism in allied regimes. 

A prominent example is the German ordoliberal Wilhelm Röpke, who praised apartheid South Africa well into the 1960s.  Slobodian recounts how Röpke lauded South Africa’s high returns on investment and white “pioneering spirit,” arguing that giving full equality to Black people would be “national suicide” .  Such statements reveal the racist and imperial undertones in parts of neoliberal thought (Röpke even proposed a “Zambezi line” segregating Africa into white and black zones ). 

By the same token, neoliberal thinkers generally opposed anti-colonial nationalism; they treated national liberation movements in Asia and Africa with distrust, viewing them as threats to global order and investment.  In the 1970s, neoliberal intellectuals organized conferences on “the crisis of free institutions” that often served as cover for supporting entrenched regimes in the Third WorldThird World Full Description: Originally a political term—not a measure of poverty—used to describe the nations unaligned with the capitalist “First World” or the communist “Second World.” It drew a parallel to the “Third Estate” of the French Revolution: the disregarded majority that sought to become something. The concept of the Third World was initially a project of hope and solidarity. It defined a bloc of nations in Latin America, Africa, and Asia that shared a common history of colonialism and a common goal of development. It was a rallying cry for the global majority to unite against imperialism and racial hierarchy. Critical Perspective:Over time, the term was stripped of its radical political meaning and reduced to a synonym for underdevelopment and destitution. This linguistic shift reflects a victory for Western narratives: instead of a rising political force challenging the global order, the “Third World” became framed as a helpless region requiring Western charity and intervention. .

Yet neoliberalism also adapted to new authoritarian models when convenient.  When Deng Xiaoping opened China’s economy in 1978, Western neoliberals took note.  Although China’s one-party rule did not fit the democratic image of liberalism, many economists praised the introduction of market mechanisms.  Milton Friedman and others saw China’s growth as partly validating market economics; Asian “Tiger” economies (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea) were often hailed as success stories of export-led neoliberal policy. 

China’s model of market-oriented authoritarianism thus presented a puzzle: neoliberals excused the lack of political freedom on the grounds that property rights and foreign investment now flourished.  Only later did some in the movement raise concerns that China’s state capitalism might undercut global trade norms.

Global Institutions and Neoliberal Governance

By the 1980s and 1990s neoliberal ideas were embedded in international institutions.  John Williamson famously christened the Washington ConsensusWashington Consensus The Washington Consensus refers to a specific array of policy recommendations that became the standard reform package offered to crisis-wracked developing countries. While ostensibly designed to stabilize volatile economies, critics argue it functions as a tool of neocolonialism, enforcing Western economic dominance on the Global South. Key Components: Fiscal Discipline: Strict limits on government borrowing, often resulting in deep cuts to social programs. Trade Liberalization: Opening local markets to foreign competition, often before domestic industries are strong enough to compete. Privatization: Selling off state-owned enterprises to private investors. Critical Perspective:By making aid and loans conditional on these reforms, the consensus effectively strips sovereign nations of their ability to determine their own economic destiny. It prioritizes the repayment of international debts over the welfare of local populations, often leading to increased poverty and the erosion of public infrastructure. in 1989 to describe the IMF/World Bank policy recipe for developing countries: fiscal discipline, tax reform, deregulation, privatization, and liberalization of trade and finance .  In practice, structural adjustment programs imposed by the IMF and World Bank on Latin America, Africa, and Asia followed this blueprint. 

As one analyst notes, the post–Cold War era was marked by a “neoliberal change and accelerating globalization,” in which the Washington Consensus “attempted to extend a particular model of neoliberal economic governance across the world” .  The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and later the World Trade Organization (WTO) institutionalized trade liberalization. 

Even the European Community (later the EU) bore neoliberal imprints: key provisions of the 1957 Treaty of Rome (the “four freedoms” of goods, capital, services, and people) were championed by ordoliberal jurists, though in the 1980s and 1990s it required stronger political will (under leaders like Jacques Delors) to make them reality .  When the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 then attempted to add a social charter and political union, many neoliberals balked – notably Margaret Thatcher, who had pushed for a completed common market but recoiled at fiscal union and welfare commitments .

On balance, however, the postwar Bretton Woods systemBretton Woods System Full Description:The Bretton Woods System was designed to prevent the competitive currency devaluations and trade protectionism that contributed to previous global conflicts. It tied global currencies to the US Dollar, which was in turn pegged to gold. While the UN managed politics, Bretton Woods institutions managed the global economy, promoting free trade and capital movement. Critical Perspective:Crucially, this system institutionalized American economic hegemony. By locating these institutions in Washington and giving the US veto power over their decisions, the system ensured that global development would follow a capitalist, Western-centric model. Critics argue it forces developing nations into a subordinate position, focusing on resource extraction and debt repayment rather than autonomous industrialization. of global finance and trade was reoriented by neoliberal ideology.  Through the 1980s and 1990s, market-oriented reforms spread to former socialist states (Eastern Europe after 1989) and developing countries.  The common currency requirements and fiscal rules of the EU’s Maastricht Treaty reflected ordoliberal ideas about balanced budgets.  In short, the free-market prescriptions of Friedman and Hayek moved from academic debates into policy defaults for the major powers.  As a Carnegie Endowment report observes, the end of the Cold War and rise of globalization saw the neoliberal Washington Consensus “increasingly dominant” as a worldwide model, even as rising inequality and political backlash in the 2000s began to strain those assumptions .

Tensions and Schisms within Neoliberalism

Despite these triumphs, the neoliberal movement was never monolithic.  Deep disagreements existed over the role of the state, social policy, and democracy.  One famous split was between Hayek and Röpke: although both opposed socialism, they quarreled over social policy and the influence of Catholic social thought.  In fact, Röpke resigned from the Mont Pèlerin Society in 1962 after a “long quarrel” with Hayek .  Röpke felt Hayek’s Britain and the new international right were not sufficiently moral or religious. 

More broadly, the German ordoliberals differed from the Anglo neoliberals.  Ordoliberals like Eucken explicitly separated themselves from both laissez-faire and the Anglo notion of neoliberalism .  They kept anti-trust and some welfare elements that free-market Americans considered excessive.  For example, ordoliberals rejected imbalanced capital accumulation and even trade liberalization if it threatened small farmers. 

In contrast, Friedman and Chicagoans were skeptical of any state guidance beyond a stable monetary framework.  Likewise, Ayn Rand’s Objectivists (not part of the mainstream movement) accused even Hayek of being soft on collectivism.  And within economics, there were debates: Milton Friedman clashed with Hayek over, for instance, monetary theory (Friedman’s “money supply” focus vs Hayek’s capital theory).  Public choice economists like Buchanan often criticized both laissez-faire and planning as unrealistic, advising instead constitutional engineering.

These internal debates reflected enduring tensions: how to balance liberty and order, markets and social justice.  Even as neoliberals pushed globalization, some (especially on the American New Right) became uneasy with supranational governance.  By the 1990s the Mont Pèlerin Society itself had a Vienna-based faction skeptical of the European Union’s “ever closer union,” while a more Eurocentric liberal faction had once pushed European integration. 

In short, as the EU story illustrates, neoliberals could support the same policies (free capital flows) but turn hostile when broader political integration or social spending followed.  The ideological tensions foreshadowed later splits: for instance, some libertarian economists rejected George W. Bush’s trade and foreign policy after 2001, while others defended it in the name of corporate globalization.

Historiographical Perspectives and Contemporary Reflections

In recent decades scholars have re-examined neoliberalism’s origins and contradictions.  Quinn Slobodian’s Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism (2018) uncovers the colonial and racial dimensions of early neoliberal thought.  He documents how thinkers like Röpke envisioned a global order of “civilized” markets split along racial lines .  Jessica Whyte’s The Morals of the Market (2019) shows how postwar neoliberals framed human rights to serve market ends, treating demands for welfare or self-determination as threats to civilization .  Their work demonstrates that, from its outset, neoliberalism contained strong hierarchies: the international rule of markets was often seen as preferable to the rule of the majority or of newly decolonized peoples.  Meanwhile, historians of ideas like Philip Mirowski (with Dieter Plehwe) emphasize that neoliberalism was a coherent intellectual project, not a mere slogan.  Mirowski argues against views that neoliberalism “does not exist,” insisting instead that it motivated “a series of successes in the public sphere” as a distinct thought collective .  This perspective underlines the meticulous work of neoliberals – through think tanks, universities, and policy circles – to reshape law and economic institutions globally.

As of the early 21st century, the neoliberal project’s legacy is hotly contested.  Some credit it with lifting living standards worldwide; others blame it for rising inequality and eroded democracy.  In practice, many of its prescriptions have been modified or rolled back (for example, after the 2008 financial crisis governments adopted more active fiscal policies).  Yet neoliberal ideas still shape debates over trade, regulation, and welfare.  From Hayek’s 1944 cautionary prose to Friedman’s 1960s polemics and beyond, the intellectual lineage of neoliberalism has been complex.  Its thinkers responded to fascism and socialism by championing markets, but they also harbored illiberal biases of their own.  The movement comprises multiple strands – the Austrian School, Chicago monetarists, German ordoliberals, and Virginia public-choice theorists – which at times cooperated and at times clashed.  In the end, neoliberalism’s story is one of both disciplined theory and practical experiment: an intellectual current born in the turmoil of the 1930s that rose to global prominence by the late 20th century.  Its history is now being rewritten by scholars who highlight both its achievements and its entanglements with empire, hierarchy, and power .