1

Actuallyexistingneoliberalism

JamiePeck(UBC),NeilBrenner(Harvard)andNikTheodore(UIC)

ChapterpreparedforTheSageHandbookofNeoliberalism(DamienCahilletal.,eds)

January15,2017

Introduction:definitions

Thenotionof‘actuallyexistingneoliberalism’wouldhardlybenecessarywereitnotfor

themarkedbutalsoconstitutivediscrepanciesbetweentheutopianidealismoffree-

marketnarrativesandthecheckered,uneven,andvariegatedrealitiesofthose

governingschemesandrestructuringprogramsvariouslyenactedinthenameof

competition,choice,freedom,andefficiency.Understoodasa‘strongdiscourse’deeply

enmeshedwiththeprimarycircuitsoffinancial,cultural,andcorporatepower

(Bourdieu,1998),neoliberalismtellsaself-servingstoryoffreemarketsandsmall

states,selectivederegulationandtargetedreregulation,lowtaxesandlean

administration,inwhichprivatizedandmarket-likearrangementsarepresentedin

positiveterms,incontrasttothecorruptandbloatedobjectsofreform—mostnotably

‘biggovernment’and‘biglabor’.Thissaid,‘neoliberalism’itselfhaspracticallyno

officiallysanctionedstatus,rarelycrossingthelipsofeventhemostardentoffree-

marketreformers.Sometimearoundthemiddleofthetwentiethcentury,whenthe

ideationalprojectofneoliberalismwasconfinedtoafringenetworkofconservative

intellectualandrenegadeeconomists,thetermfelloutofuseamongstproponents,to

bereplacedbyanaltogethermoreeuphemisticvocabulary.Thishasmadeanalyzing

thedimensionsandcharacteristicsofmarketruleallthemorecomplicated.1Intheage

ofactuallyexistingneoliberalism(s),sincethe1970s,whentheprojecthasrarelyspoken

itsname,academiccriticsandpoliticalfoesresuscitatedthisterminologyandbeganto

1Foranotable‘countercultural’example,anexceptionthateffectivelyprovesthemoregeneralrule,seetheAdamSmithInstitute’srecentefforttoreclaimandrecuperatethemonikerneoliberal,onbehalfofitsrightfulowners,onemightsay(Pirie,2014;Bowman,2016;cf.Peck,2010,2018).

2

define,place,andpositionneoliberalism.Itistothistasktowhichwedevotethis

chapter.

The‘flexiblecredo’ofneoliberalismhasbeenrealizedthroughasomewhat

improvisedandshape-shiftingrepertoireofpro-corporate,pro-marketprograms,

projects,andpower-plays,variouslyfoundedonasympatheticcritiqueof19thCentury

liberalism(orlaissezfaire),onanuncompromisingCold-Warrepudiationofsocialism

andcommunism,andonadecidedlyantagonisticrelationshipwithpost-SecondWorld

Warmodesofliberalregulation(notably,Keynesianismanddevelopmentalism,

representedasperilouscompromisesontheslipperyslopesofoftotalitarianism,

statism,andserfdom).Whilesharingsomecommonpointsofreference,programsof

identifiablyneoliberalstateandsocietaltransformation,astheybegantogaintraction

inthe1970s,didnotemergeinasingularoruniformmanner,shapedasthey(each)

werebycontext-specificcrises,struggles,andexperiments.Whatbeganasaloosely

articulatedclusterofstateprojects,incountriessuchasChile,theUnitedKingdom,New

Zealand,andtheUnitedStates,wouldsubsequentlymorphintoanadaptivematrixof

market-orientedandpro-corporateregulatorynorms.Readasafree-marketpolicy

paradigm,thiswouldinformtheoperatingmanualdevelopedbythearchitectsof

structural-adjustmentprogramsamongstthe‘Washingtonconsensus’institutions;asa

transnationalpoliticalproject,itwouldcumulativelyreshaperulesoftheregulatory

gameonamuchmoregeneralizedbasis,seepingandsprawlingintosomething

resemblinganormalizedcommonsense,orpracticalhegemony.Intheprocess,

neoliberalismhasgonefromavanguardistpoliticalprojecttoanentrenchedmodeof

regulation—indeedinsomerespectsbothan‘ordinary’anda‘constitutionalized’one

(seeBrenneretal.,2014;GillandCutler,2014;Peck,2017).

Understoodasideologicalmatrixandasanadaptiverationaleforongoing

projectsofstateandsocietalrestructuring,fortifiedandguidedbyastrongdiscourseof

marketprogress,neoliberalismplainlycannotexistintheworldin‘pure,’uncut,or

unmediatedform.Instead,its‘actuallyexisting’manifestationsare—andcanonlybe—

partial,polycentric,andplural;itsdynamicsoffrontaladvanceandflawedreproduction

3

aremarkedbyfriction,contradiction,polymorphism,andunevengeographical

development,andnotjustbecausetheproject-cum-processhasbeensomehow

‘blocked’orhalf-cocked—thatitremainsincomplete—butbecausevolatilehybridityis

theconditionofexistence.Itisforthesereasonsthatwehavelongmadethecasefor

processualunderstandingsofneoliberalization,coupledwitharecognitionofthe

necessarydiversityofitsactuallyexistingforms,thecombinedandunevendevelopment

ofwhichisenduringbutalsomutuallyconditioning(BrennerandTheodore,2002a;Peck

andTickell,2002).

Ascriticalsocialscientistshavewrestledwiththecomplexconnectionsbetween

theideological,ideational,institutional,andoften-idiosyncraticmanifestationsofthe

free-marketproject,theterm‘neoliberal’graduallycametoassumeaquitedeterminate

politicalmeaningwithintheradicallexicon.Formanyontheleft,ithasbecomea

bywordformarketization,privatization,commodification,andtheruleofthe1%,but

quiteoftenasmoreofasloganratherthanapreciselyspecifiedterm.Alongtheway,

theterminologyofneoliberalismhasbeenvariouslyinvoked—increasinglyliberally,one

mightsay—sometimesasashorthandsignifierofthefree-marketzeitgeistofthepost-

1970speriodorthepressuresofglobalcompetition,sometimesasapoliticalattack

termoreverydaypejorative,andinothercasesasananalyticframe,coveringconcept,

ordiagnosticdevice.Inaquiteextraordinarilydiffuseway,differentreadingsand

renderingsof‘neoliberalism’cannowbefound‘allovertheplace’.Theywillbeinvoked

inmicrosociologicalstudiesofshiftingsubjectivitiesandintheculturalcritiqueofsocial

codesandgoverningrationalities;theyhavebecomeadjectivalcommonplacesinwork

thatspansthescalarspectrum,fromlocalizedinstitutionalreformsthroughprojectsof

national(state)transformation,toglobalruleregimesandgeopoliticalorders.The

politicallychargedlabelwillbebroadly(andsometimesquiteindiscriminately)applied

totheinstitutionsandinterestsoftheWashington-consensusagenciesorthoseofWall

Street,butalsotoadiversearrayof‘deregulation’,privatization,marketreform,and

structural-adjustmentpolicies.Inmoreorlessobliqueways,itmaybeattachedtothe

initiativesofreformingsocial-democraticgovernmentsinnorthernEuropeandalsoto

4

certainactionsoftheChinese(communist)partystate.Andyet,perhapsmost

paradoxically,thelingoofneoliberalismremainsdifficultto‘translate’inwhatmany

considertobethe‘home’ofthisWashington-and-Wall-Streetworldview,theUnited

States,partlythankstotheleft-of-centerconnotationsoftheword‘liberal’inthat

country,nottomentionthecontradictorygyrationsoftheTrumpadministration.

Inlightoftheargumentsthatwewilldevelopintheremainderofthischapter,

however,itisquiteappropriatethatthetangleofmeaningsattachedto‘neoliberalism’

remainbothsomewhatambiguousandsituationallyspecific,spanningastheydoarash

ofpromiscuously‘global’applicationsandaconstellationofquiteparticularlocal

translations.Thismaybealittleperplexingfromananalyticalpointofview,butit

arguablysayssomethingabouthowneoliberalismexistsintheworld—asapresence

seeminglyoppressive,real,andimmediateinsomerespects,butatthesametimeone

thatcanalsobeconsideredtobediffuse,abstract,andliminal.Dueinnosmallmeasure

tothesewheels-within-wheelspuzzlesofsemanticsandsignification,theproblems

associatedwithdefininganddelimitingneoliberalismarearguablymoredauntingnow

thaneverbefore.Somewillconfidentlyproclaimthattheyknowthetelltalesignsof

neoliberalismwheneverandwherevertheyseethem,andtheywillseethempractically

everywhere;othersinsistnolessemphaticallythattherecognitionofthisconnective,

envelopingconceptisconstraining(ifnotsuffocating)inbothanalyticalandpolitical

terms,optingtoholditataskepticaldistance,orperhapstospurntheformulation

altogether.Tobesure,itisonethingtoapplythelabeltotheradicalrestructuring

programsinitiatedbyAugustoPinochetorMargaretThatcherorRonaldReagan,quite

anothertoaccountforabewilderingarraylate-stagemutations,ambienttraces,local

hybrids,incipienttendenciesinthesesame(orsimilar)terms,interpretativeand

classificatorychallengesthathavepromptedsomeanalyststoquestiontheutilityofthe

concept,justasotherscontinuetofinditnecessary,whilewrestlingwithisrascal

character(seeClarke,2008;Ferguson,2010;Pecketal.,2010;Hall,2011;Peck,2013;

Vengopal,2015;LeGalès,2016).

5

Amongstthosewhofindcontinuingutilityintheconceptofneoliberalism,asan

analyticalframeandasanecessary(ifawkward)conceptualformulation,thenotionof

actuallyexistingneoliberalismhasservedthesignificantfunctionofsignalingand

problematizingtheenduringdiscrepanciesbetweentheidealizedanduniversalizing

languageofmarketreform(neoliberalismasstarkutopia,toborrowPolanyi’sprophetic

phrase)andthepath-dependent,pragmatic,andcontextualembeddednessofextant

programsofneoliberaltransformation(neoliberalismasstarkreality,onemightsay).

Thisisawayofacknowledging,attheoutset,thatthestrongdiscourseofneoliberalism

itselfhasgenerativeandconstitutiveeffects,notleastbyvirtueoftheongoingeffectsof

naturalizationandnormalization,butalsothroughthecreepofpolicymakingcontagion

andthecolonizationofcommonsenseunderstandings.Furthermore,invokingactually

existingneoliberalismreflectstherecognitionthatreal-worldprogramsofneoliberal

restructuringareneverunfurledacrossatabularasa,noraretheyentrainedona

convergenttransformationalcourse.Rather,theyareforged(andoftenforced)in

dialecticaltensionwithinheritedsocialandinstitutionallandscapes,andthroughan

arrayofsituatedpoliticalstrugglesandstrategicmaneuvers,suchthatneoliberalism

‘canneverbeunderstoodinradicalseparationfromhistorical[andgeographical]

configurations’(Hilgers,2012:81;seealsoBrennerandTheodore,2002a;Peckand

Theodore,2012;Ban,2016).

Eschewing‘flat’readingsoftotalizingconvergence(whereneoliberalismexhibits

asingularandrigidlyimposedglobalform)aswellas‘centric’modelsofcoercionand

diffusion(whereneoliberalismisreadasatop-downimposition,orasaphenomenon

radiatingunidirectionallyoutfrom‘heartlands’to‘peripheries’),theconceptofactually

existingneoliberalismisaprovocationtotheorize—continually—throughandacross

historicalandgeographicaldifference.Itexplicitlyproblematizesanongoing

interpretativedialoguebetweencriticalinvestigationsofmaterialanddiscursive

projectsofpolitical-economictransformation‘ontheground’,manyofwhichare

routinelydistortedeveniftheyarenotallthatregularlythwarted,andthe‘complex

unity’ofneoliberalisminitsabstractedform,whichisplainlynotreducibletosome

6

ChicagoSchool,Thatcherite,WallStreet,MontPelerinian,thirdway,orWashington-

consensusform,butwhichexistsasmorethanthesumofthese(andother)always-

movingparts.Thepositionthatweadvocateherecannotbereducedtoamere

acknowledgmentof‘varieties’or‘localizations’ofneoliberalism,inastaticsenseof

cross-sectionalorplanardifference;itisamatterofproblematizingconstitutiveand

articulateddifferencesinmotion,andthecumulativeandcombinatorialcharacterof

neoliberalizationasanunevenlydevelopedandreproducedhistoricalprocess.The

notionofactuallyexistingneoliberalismthereforeconfrontsunevenspatial

development,nonlinearevolution,variegation,polymorphism,andpolysemism,notas

empiricalconcessionsorconstructivistcaveats,norasmerelycontingentvariations

foundinthewakeofsomepresumptionofstructuraldominance,butasconstitutive

propertiesofthecontradictoryprocessthatisneoliberalization(seeBrenneretal.,

2010b;PeckandTheodore,2012).Abstracttheorizingandcontextualizedinvestigations

arethereforenotalternativepursuits,inthisrespect,butoppositesidesofthesame

methodologicalstrategy,eachcallingupontheother.

Theoriginsoftheconceptofactuallyexistingneoliberalismcanbetraced,tothe

bestofourknowledge,toanAntipodeworkshopconvenedintheFallof2001(see

BrennerandTheodore,2002b).Theremitofthatmeetingwastoexploretheemergent

dynamicsofNorthAmericanandWesternEuropeanpatternsofneoliberalization,with

particularreferencetothegeographicallyunevenandmultiscalarcharacterofthese

transformations.Needlesstosay,‘actuallyexistent’formsofneoliberalismwerehardly

anoveltyatthetime,especiallyintheUnitedStatesandtheUnitedKingdom,butthere

werevexingquestionsaroundtheconceptualizationandspecificationofthiswould-be

political-economickeyword,whichhadyettoacquireanythingapproachinga

widespreadintellectualcurrency,evenincriticalcircles.Mostofthoseattendingthe

meetingwerebyinclinationskepticalofformulationsderivedfromoverarchingor

archetypicalmodelsofneoliberalism,thesingularityofwhichechoedtheeuphemistic

(mis)representationofuniversalmarketfreedomsonthepartofreformadvocates.

Instead,sharedprojectinitiatedattheworkshopinvolvedasimultaneousconcernwith

7

thetransnationalreachofneoliberalrationalitiesandreformmodelsandthegrounded

particularitiesofactuallyexistingprogramsofrestructuring.

Trackingbetweensomeoftheselongstandingconcernsandsubsequentlinesof

workonthevariegationofneoliberalism,theargumentsintheremainderofthis

chapterarepursuedintwosteps.First,theconceptsofneoliberalism,neoliberalization

andactuallyexistingneoliberalismareelaboratedandextended.Thisinvolves

movementsbetweenmore‘generic’readingsofneoliberalismanditsevolving,unevenly

developed,andsite-specificform(s),culminatinginadiscussionofthetemporalityof

actuallyexistingneoliberalism.Second,andbuildinguponthesefoundations,the

implicationsofaconjuncturalunderstandingofneoliberalismarefurtherexplored,

focusingontheissueofunevengeographicaldevelopment,notasameasureofhow

someonce-pureneoliberalismbecamecomplicatedorsullied‘intheworld’,butasa

matterofitsverycircumstancesofexistence.Thechapter’sconclusionreturnstothese

knottyproblemsofdefinition.Hereitissuggestedthatthenotionofactuallyexisting

neoliberalismhasplayedaroleinproblematizingtheembeddedspatiality,adaptive

capacities,stubbornnormalization,andshape-shiftingdynamicsofneoliberalizationina

waythatprovidesbotharationaleandareceiptfortranscendent,critical,andopen-

endedmodesofanalysis.

Concepts

Thetasksofunpackingandrepackingtheconceptofneoliberalism,itsongoing

deconstructionandreconstruction,aredestinedtoremainongoingones—ratherlikethe

radically‘incompletable’projectofneoliberalismitself,perhaps—evenif,fromour

perspective,thesetaskscontinuetobenecessary.Inapproximatelydescendinglevelsof

abstraction,neoliberalismcanbetakentoreferto:anhistoricallyascendantpatternand

hegemonicideologyofcapitalistdevelopment,organicallylinkedtoahostofpost-1970s

tendenciestowardsglobaleconomicintegration,financialization,andnormalized

practicesof‘marketrule’;apolitical-economicphilosophy,withapredispositionforliberal

8

economics,encompassinganaturalizedunderstandingofmarketforcesandrationalities,

togetherwithalicenseformarket-complementingstateinterventions;apervasive

rationalityoflean-orsmall-statetransformation,modeledontheprinciplesof

entrepreneurialism,efficiency,costcontrol,privatism,andcompetition,butspeaking

moretoastrategicallyselectiveapproachtogovernmentalrestructuringthantoa

comprehensivelyachievedinstitutionalcondition;andanumbrellatermfora

programmaticallyconnectedfamilyofpro-market,pro-corporate,andpro-choicepolicy

measures,includingthesaleofstateassetsandservices,regressivetaxreform,programs

of‘deregulation’,thegrantingofcorporateconcessionsandexemptions(evenfrom

marketruleitself),thepenalorpaternalistmanagementofpoverty,thecommodification

ofsociallifeandnaturalresources,andthe(oftentechnocratic)impositionoffiscal

discipline,structuraladjustment,markettests,anddevolvedausterity.

Fundamentally,theideologyofneoliberalismisfoundedonanidealizedvisionof

marketruleandliberalfreedoms,combiningautilitarianconceptionofmarketrationality

andcompetitiveindividualismwithdeepantipathiestosocialredistributionandsolidarity.

Notwithstandingtheutopianappealtofreemarketsandindividualfreedoms,

unencumberedfromregulatoryconstraintsandstate‘interference’,inpracticethese

doubled-edgedreformsveryoftenentailasignificantintensificationofcoercive,

proactive,andinvasiveformsofstateinterventioninordertoimposeversionsofmarket

rule,todisciplineunrulysubjects—andthentomanagetheensuingcontradictions,

environmentalexternalities,andsocialfallout.Oneofneoliberalism’sfoundingmythsis

that‘rollingbackthefrontiersofthestate’,toborrowoneofMargaretThatcher’sturnsof

phrase,willmoreorlessonitsownbesufficienttoanimateaspontaneouscompetitive

order,toliberatelatentmarketforces,andtoactivatesuppressedentrepreneurialspirits.

Experienceshowsthatthis,however,isnevertheendofthestory,asneoliberalreformers

havebeenrepeatedlydrawn,sometimesreluctantly,intotheworkofmakingmarkets

work,initiatingnewroundsofinstitutionbuildingandpro-market‘governance’.This

speakstothecomplexrealityoftheneoliberalizationasajarring,non-teleological,and

contradictoryprocessofcreativedestruction,comprisingalternatingmomentsof

9

deregulatory‘rollback’andre-regulatory‘rollout’,amountingtoaninterventionistmode

ofregulation‘indenial’(Peck,2010).Furthermore,whereasneoliberalideologyimplies

thatself-regulatingmarketsgenerateoptimalallocationsofinvestmentandresources,

neoliberalpoliticalpracticehasitselfbeenacauseofpervasivemarketfailures,newforms

ofsocialandenvironmentaldegradation,increasedsocioeconomicinequalityanduneven

spatialdevelopment,andendemicconditionsofgovernancefailure.

Themanifolddisjuncturesanddiscrepanciesthathaveaccompaniedthe

transnationalextensionandprogressivedeepeningofneoliberalism—betweenideology

andpractice;doctrineandreality;objectiveandoutcome—cannotbeglossedoveras

merelyaccidentalside-effectsorfailuresofimplementation;rather,theyareamongits

mostdiagnosticallyandpoliticallysalientfeatures.Forthisreason,anessentializedor

reductionistapproachtothepoliticaleconomyofneoliberalrestructuringcanneverbe

sufficient.(Andneither,forthatmatter,arestrictlyparsimoniousdefinitionsof

neoliberalismeverreallyadequate.)Thisisnotacoherentlybounded‘ism’,afunctional

system,astableregime,oranhistorical‘end-state’;neither,forthatmatter,doesittake

theformofafixedsetofpolicypreferencesandtechnologies.Instead,therollingand

contradictoryprocessofneoliberalizationshouldbeunderstoodasanuneven,

frustrated,creativelydestructive,adaptive,andopen-endedprocessoftransformation.

(Inotherwords,itnamesthechangeprocess,notsimplyitsoutcome.)Thisiswhy,for

presentpurposes,thesomewhatelusivephenomenoninneedofdefinitional

clarificationmustbeinterpretedasanhistoricallyspecific,fungible,volatile,and

unstableprocessofmarket-drivensociospatialrestructuring(forallitsimperative

manifestationsandalignmentswithcontemporarypower-geometries),ratherthanasa

fullyactualizedpolicyregime,completeinstitutionalapparatus,orstabilizedregulatory

framework.‘Equilibrium’isnotaroundthecorner.Furthermore,neoliberalizationis

bothpredicatedonandrealizedthroughunevenspatialdevelopment,its‘naturalstate’

beingcharacterizedbyanintenselyvariegatedandpersistentlydynamictopography.

Therefore,unevenspatialdevelopmentdoesnotsignalsomeway-stationenrouteto

‘full’neoliberalism;itisnotaninterruptionormerecomplication,butisintegraltothe

10

characterofprocessofneoliberalizationitselfanditscontradictoryconditionsof

existence.Convergenceonaunified,monolithicneoliberalend-stateshouldnotbe

anticipated,letaloneheldupassomekindoftestofthe‘degree’ofneoliberalization.

Indexingasitdoesaqualitativeprocessoftransformation,neoliberalizationcannotbe

reducedtoaquestionweighingthesizeofthestateortheextentofthemarket,asif

thetwospheresexistedinazero-sumrelationship.

Asweformulateithere,then,neoliberalizationreferstoafrontalprocessof

always-incompletetransformation,toaprevailingpatternandethosofmarket-oriented,

market-disciplinary,andmarket-makingregulatoryrestructuring,onethatisbeing

realized,nevermorethanpartially,acrossacontested,uneveninstitutionallandscape,in

thecontextofheterogeneous,coevolving,andoftencountervailingpolitical-economic

conditions.Fromthisperspective,anadequateunderstandingofongoingprocessesof

neoliberalizationdemandsmorethanafamiliaritywiththefoundingideasandideologies

ofthefree-marketrevolution,whichhavethemselvesevolvedconsiderablysincetheir

canonizationbythelikesofvonHayekandFriedman.Justasimportantareprobing,

multi-dimensional,andsystematicinquiriesintothemultifariousinstitutionalarticulations

anddevelopmentaltendenciesdisplayedbyactuallyexistingneoliberalformations,into

theirdiversesociopoliticaleffectsandlocalconfigurations,andintotheirinherentlimits

andcumulativecontradictions.Whiletheideologyofneoliberalismdeferstothe

sovereigntyofasingular,transhistorical,anduniquelyefficientmarket,theinescapably

moremurkyrealityisthatactuallyexistingprogramsofneoliberaltransformationare

alwayscontextuallyembedded,institutionallygrounded,andpoliticallymediated—forall

theirgenericfeatures,familyresemblances,patterneddynamics,andstructural

interconnections.Adequateanalysesofneoliberalizationmustthereforeconfrontthis

necessaryhybridityandcomplexspatiality,sinceitisnotonlyproblematic,butanalytically

andpoliticallymisleading,tovisualizeneoliberalismpurelyinideal-typicalterms,asif

characterizedbyincipientorextantfunctionality.Programsofneoliberalrestructuringare

notlineduponapathwaytocompleteortotalneoliberalism,eveniftheywilloften

deriveideologicalinspiration,strategicdirection,andpoliticalpurposefromthis

11

(imagined,utopian)destination.Justasthenotionofafree-standing,self-regulating

markethasbeenexposedasamisleadingbutproductivemyth,itmustberecognizedthat

characteristicallyneoliberalevocationsofaspontaneousandsuperiormarketorder

operateasastrongdiscourse—thatis,asomewhatself-actualizinghomily,ratherthanan

accurateportrayalofneoliberalstatecraft(seeBourdieu,1998;Cahill,2012;Brown,

2015).Forthisreason,processesofneoliberalizationareinescapablyembeddedand

context-contingentphenomena—evenastheirowndiscursive(mis)representations

routinelyseektodenythisverycontextualembeddedness.

Evenif,inanabstractsense,thebroadcontoursofneoliberalprojectscanbe

saidtoexhibitahostofrecurringfeaturesandfamilyresemblances—suchasan

orientationtowardsexport-oriented,financializedcapital;apreferencefornon-

bureaucraticandflexiblemodesofregulation;anaversiontoprogressivesociospatial

redistributionandinstitutionalizedsocialentitlements;themaskingofelitepower,

ongoingdispossession,andupwardredistributionbyideologiesofcompetitivefairness

andtrickle-downeconomics;andastructuralinclinationinfavorofmarket-mimicking

governancesystems,corporateconcessions,andprivatizedmonopolies—theactually

existingneoliberalismsoftodaycannotbutdisplaytheirdeeplypath-dependentorigins

andtheongoingeffectsoftheircontradictoryandconflictualcohabitationwithnon-

neoliberalothers.Notonlydothey(continueto)differfromoneanother,theyeach

havecometodifferinquitesignificantwaysfromthefirstgenerationofvanguard

projectsoriginatinginthe1970s.Andeveniftheselatter-dayactuallyexisting

neoliberalismscoexistinanoperatingenvironmentmarkedbyanarrayofgeneralized

disciplines,pressures,andincentives—suchasthosestemmingfromfinancialization,

regimecompetition,geopoliticalcoercion,andfast-policymodeling—itwouldbegoing

toofartoclaimthatthisisresultinginaconsistentpatternofunidirectional

convergence.Theneoliberalworldorderremainsamultipolarone,andthevarious

leadingfrontsofactiveneoliberalizationatthepresenttimeincludearangeofsocially

ameliorative,reactionary,technocratic,andauthoritarianforms.Furthermore,evenas

thesedisplayahegemonicreach—forinstance,asapolicymakingcommonsenseandas

12

aprocessualcommonthread—thismostcertainlydoesnotmeanthat‘theneoliberal’is

alwaysandeverywherethemostactiveandpredominantsourceoftransformative

change.Themovingterrainisalsobeingremadebycountervailingandalternative

projects,bypulsesandcyclesofactiveresistance,byobstructionandopportunism,and

byrecurrentcrisesofvaryingscaleandscope,someofwhicharesystemic,othersmuch

moresituational.

Anenduringsourceofpathdependencyacrossthisdiversefamilyofvariably

neoliberalizedsocialformationsandstateprojectsstemsfromthecreativelydestructive

characterofmarketruleitself.Weclosethispartofthediscussionbyreturningtothe

dialecticsofcreativedestruction.Ontheonehand,thereactionarymomentof

neoliberalizationentailsthe(partial)destructionordissolutionofextantinstitutional

arrangementsandsocialcompromisesthroughmarket-orientedreforminitiatives;on

theotherhand,itsproactivefaceinvolvesthe(tendential)formationofnewregulatory

infrastructuresandnormsformarket-orienteddevelopmentandcapital-centricrule

(BrennerandTheodore,2002a).Thearcoftheneoliberalrestructuringprocessextends

acrossbothofthesemoments,acrosscontext-specificrollbacksofantithetical

institutionalformsandoppositionalpowercentersthroughthedismantlingand

‘deregulation’ofcollectivist,progressivelyredistributionist,anddevelopmentalist

systems,andthesubsequentrolloutofnewmodesofinstitutionalregulationandnovel

stylesofstatecraft,manyofwhichstemfromtheneedtomanagethecontradictions

andnegativeexternalitiesofearlierroundsofneoliberalization(seePeckandTickell,

2002;HallandMassey,2010;Brenneretal.,2010a).

Thisisnotjusttomakethepointthatneoliberalstrategiesechodomesticpolitics

orthattheyarepathdependentinacontingentmanner,butrathertoissuethe

strongerclaimthatneoliberalstrategiesaredeeplyandindeliblyshapedbydiversebut

formativeactsofinstitutionaldissolution.Theprotractedrollbackmomentof

neoliberalismismorethansimplya‘brush-clearing’phase;itiseffectivelyinternalized

intothedynamics,logicsandtrajectoriesofsubsequentregulatorytransformations.

Furthermore,thegeographiesofactuallyexistingneoliberalizationhavebeenmashed

13

up,fromthestart,withwiththecrisis-rivengeographiesof‘statefailure’thattheywere

designedtoexploitand,ultimately,supersede.Consequently,allactuallyexisting

neoliberalismsstronglybeartheimprintofpastregulatorystruggles,whichrecursively

shapepoliticalcapacitiesandorientations,aswellasfuturepathwaysof(neoliberal)

restructuring.Andnosinglepathormodelshouldbeconsideredparadigmatic(from

which‘deviations’canbemeasured),sinceactuallyexistingneoliberalismsarealways,

necessarily,conjuncturallyspecific,aswellasmutuallyarticulating.Thereisnolocus

classicus.Conceptually,thisechoesourclaimthatneoliberalizationasanopen-ended

process,andnotaclearlydemarcatedphaseorendstate.Politically,thisunderlinesthe

characterofneoliberalizationasasetofintersectingstrategiesofrestructuring,rather

thanastableandfreestandingsystem,theoutcomesofwhicharealsoopen-ended

ratherthanpreordained.

Thisemphasisonthetendentiallyadaptiveandcreativecapacitiesof

neoliberalismmaybeatoddswithsomeaccountsofitsdestructiveandintrinsically

unsustainablecharacter,butwewouldmaintainthatthismoredialecticalreadingcan

helpilluminatethecomplex,oftenhighlycontradictorytrajectoriesofwhathaveproved

tobequitedoggedlypersistent,andyetcontinuallyevolving,programsofneoliberal

restructuring.Furthermore,thedestructiveandcreativemomentsofneoliberalization

arenotseparateandliterallysequential;inpracticetheyareintimatelyandinextricably

entangled.(Theyare‘moments’inthattheyrepresentconflictualyetmutuallyrelated

aspectsofadynamic,dialecticalprocess.)Actuallyexistingneoliberalismsexhibitdeeply

reactionarycurrentsinthesensethattheyareshapedasmuchbytheirantipathiesand

antithesesasbytheirpubliclydeclaredbutoftenfrustratedgoalsofmarket-oriented

transformation,theprojected‘endpoint’ofwhichremainsnotonlysociallyand

ecologicallyunsustainable,butalsopoliticallyandeconomicallyunrealizable.Thisisa

utopianendpoint,nevertheless,thatcontinuestoinspire,animate,guide,and

occasionally‘correct’programsofneoliberaltransformation—asourceofitselemental

‘drive’.

14

Whileevery(particular)experienceofneoliberalizationismarkedbyitsown

temporality—itsowncalendarofkeyevents,confrontations,andcrises—withthe

benefitofhindsightitispossibletodetermineseveralcoursecorrectionsofamore

generalvariety.Attheveryleast,thesespeaktotheadaptivenature(andpolitical

resilience)oftheproject.Moretelling,perhaps,isthefactthatwhileneoliberalismhas

displayed—sofar—anabilitytoadaptandevolveinthefaceofcrises,increasinglythese

arecrisesofitsownmaking,arisingfromitsaggravated,internalcontradictionsand

limitations.(Thefollowingmidcourseadjustments,inthissense,aremostcertainlynot

merelyoscillationsaroundsomeequilibriumpointorsimplythefine-tuningofastable

setofneoliberalizedgovernancearrangements.)First,thefailureofmonetarisminthe

early1980s,coupledwiththeshortcomingsofthefirstgenerationofexperimentsin

privatizationandderegulation,promptedaseriesofturnstowardspragmatismand

prudence,subsequentlytomorphintonewroundsofexperimentationinmarket-

complementing,institutionallyflanking,andameliorativemodesofgovernance.Atthe

internationalscale,thisshiftwasechoedinthemoveawayfromloan-basedstructural

adjustmentmodels,focusedonthemacro-regulatory‘fundamentals’,totheso-called

post-Washingtonconsensus,withitsemphasisoninstitutionalreform,local

empowerment,andpovertyalleviation(seeNaím,2000).Second,the‘thirdway’

projectsthatwerelaunched,fromthemid-1990sonwards,presagedasignificant

internationalrealignmentofcenter-leftgovernments,signifiedbyaccommodationsto

freer-tradingformsofglobalization,tofinancializedmodelsofgrowth,andtotheneed

toconfront‘hardchoices’insocial-policyreform.Foratime,itseemedlikethisClinton-

Blairstyleof‘softneoliberalism’mightevenconstitutethe‘bestpoliticalshell’forthe

projectofmarket-orientedgovernance(seeHall,2003).Third,theWallStreetcrashof

2008,whichwasinitiallymarkedbyaseriesofprematureannouncementsofthe‘death’

ofneoliberalism,ledinsteadtoawidespreadturntowardsdevolvedausterity

governanceandselectivelyapplied‘stimulus’spending,thelimitationsofwhichwereto

berevealedinpatternsofsluggishgrowth,spiralinginequalities,andincreasinglyrestive

politics.Real-timeinterpretationsofthisinflectionpointinthepoliticaleconomyof

15

neoliberalizationwereinitiallydividedbetweenrelativelyoptimisticvisions‘post-

neoliberalism’andforecastsofaretro-neoliberalturn(back)torevanchism,withthe

latterprovingtobethepredominantcourse(seePecketal.,2010).Andfourth,justas

theproximateoriginsoftheWallStreetcrashwerelocatedintheUnitedStates,the

centersoffinancecapital,NewYorkandLondon,sotheBrexitreferendumresultand

theTrumpelectioncameasfurthersignsoftroubleinthesupposed‘heartlands’.The

futurecourseofeventsisinherentlyunpredictable,perhapsprofoundlyso,butearly

indicationsarethatthecenter-leftmodelof‘softneoliberalism’,orwhatNancyFraser

(2017)hascalled‘progressiveneoliberalism’,couldnowbefacingaterminalcrisis,as

newgoverningpathsareimprovisedinthecontextofsurgingcurrentsofright-wing

populism,cronyism,authoritarianism,protectionism,andkleptocracy.

ConjuncturesAccountingforneoliberalism‘inthewild’,andacrossitsmanydomesticated,conflicted,

hybrid,contested,andcrisis-ponemanifestations,hasbeenachallengeforaslongas

therehavebeen(critical)theoriesofneoliberalism.Alongstandingconcernhasbeento

accountfortherevealed,andveryreal,‘diversityof“actuallyexisting”neoliberalisms

[whilealsoattendingto]whyandhowthediffusesystemofpowerthatlendsthema

certainunityhasmanagedtoimplantitselfwithsuchapparentsuccessinsuchawide

rangeofcircumstances’(Gledhill,2004:336).Bythesametoken,itisalsothecasethat

actuallyexistingneoliberalismsare‘morethancuriouslocalmanifestationsofglobal

norms’,asDanielGoldstein(2012:305)haspointedout;morethan‘locallyvariegated

instantiationsofglobalideas[sincetheyarealso]fullylivedrealitiesinwhichpeopleand

stateshavetheirowntheories,andelaboratetheirowndiscoursesandcritiques,about

theworldstheyinhabitandthewaysinwhichtheseshouldbeorganised’.Furthermore,

noneoftheselocal,lived,andhybridformationsexistasifhermeticallysealedfromone

another;theycoexistinthecontextofrelational,more-than-localfieldsofisomorphic

institutionalchange,fast-policymutation,iterative(re)articulation,andcompetitively

inducedadaptation.Wehavearguedelsewherethatisnothelpfultoreducethisfinely

16

granulated,ifdeeplystriated,landscapetosomekindofbinarygeographyinwhich

neoliberalizationisnaturalizedinsomesites(itsostensiblyparadigmaticlocations),

whilebeingrenderedexceptionalorabnormalinothers(Brenneretal.,2010b).Instead,

neoliberalismmightbesaidonlytoexistinamultiplicityof‘discrepant’formations,ina

rangeofantagonistic,conflictual,oratleast‘frictional’situations—itslocalconditionsof

existencebeingthoseofcontradictorycoexistence.

Butifneoliberalismcanneverentirelymonopolizethesocialfield,whatareits

conditionsof(actual)existence?Sinceitdoesnotandcannotstandalone,the

circumstancesofneoliberalism’s(co)existencecompriseanarrayoftroubledand

turbulentmarriageswithitsdecidedlyunlovedothers,includingahostofresidual,

competing,andalternativesocialformations,suchasthosegroundedin

neoconservatism,authoritarianism,socialdemocracy,developmentalism,left

reformism,andsoforth(seeBrenneretal.,2010b;Peck,2013).Ifneoliberalismcannot

exhaustivelyoccupythesocialfield,itmustsharethatfield,evenasitmayoftendoso

underconditionsofdominanceorevenhegemony.Furthermore,ifneoliberalismexists

asafrustrateduniversalfoundonlyinstressedhybridsanddiscrepantformations,its

transnational(andtranslocal)patterningcannotbereducedtovariationarounda

commonthemeornorm.Consequently,sinceneoliberalismexistsasaseriesof

unhappymarriages,theresultingfamilytreedoesnothaveasingularneoliberaltaproot,

butratheradiversearrayofrootsandbranches.

Asarestructuringethos,neoliberalismisalwaysdefined—atleastinpart—by

thesocialworldsandstatespacesthattheprojectitselfseekstorestructure.Eachand

everysuchprogramwillthereforeexhibitdeeplyconstitutive(ifnot‘genetic’)formsof

pathdependency,withthescope,sites,targets,andtrajectoriesofneoliberal

transformationallbeingshaped,aswehaveargued,bytheinstitutional,social,and

political-economicinheritancesthatnotonlypredatesomeinitiating‘moment’of

market-orientedreformbutpredicateandpropelit,impartingshape,momentum,and

purpose.Inthiscontext,pre-ornon-neoliberalinstitutionsaremorethananachronistic

institutionalresidues,fortheirinterpenetrationwithsituatedmodalitiesofneoliberal

17

restructuringwillconfigurepathways,strategies,andoutcomesindistinctive,

generative,butalsocontradictoryways.Itfollowsthatthehybridpresencesof

neoliberalization—eachactuallyexistingformationbeingamore-than-neoliberal

formation—willeachbeassociatedwiththeirown,conjuncturallyandlocallydistinctive

clustersofemergentproperties,potentialities,andfrailties.Theevolvinggeographies

ofneoliberalismconsequentlyamounttomore-than-contingentvariationsaroundthe

samebasictheme;theyrepresentcontextuallyembeddedandyettransnationally

articulatedformations,thecoexistenceofwhichmakesadifferenceevenifitdoesnot

implyconvergence.Hencetheneedforsituatedanalysesofspecifichybridformations

inrelationbothtooneanotherandtobroadertendenciesandpatterns,asdistinguished

fromattemptstocatalogue,sidebyside,different‘varieties’ofneoliberalism,orto

assessdegreesofdivergencefromanidealtypeorputative(American)‘norm’.

Itfollowsthatitissomethingofafool’serrandtosetoutinsearchofanideal-

typicalor‘pure’formofneoliberalism,againstwhichvarietiesordeviationsmightbe

calibrated.Neoliberalizationcannotbemeasuredagainstaparadigmaticcase(forthere

hasbeenno‘original’,exclusivelypattern-settingtransition);andtoreducethis

qualitativeprocesstoamatterofdegreesisanalogoustothecategoryerrorof

measuringthe‘amount’(orlevel)ofmarketization(seeKrippner,2002;Peck,2017).

Rather,actuallyexistingneoliberalisms(canonly)existasconjuncturallyspecificforms

andthereforeintheplural—albeitasarelational,interconnected,mutuallyreferential

plurality.Hencetheapparentparadoxthatneoliberalismcanappeartobe‘alloverthe

place’,ifnotalmostomnipresent,whileatthesametimeitisfoundnowherein

‘undiluted’orreplicatedform.Asanalwayscompromised,discrepant,context-

dependent,contradictory,andshape-shiftingpresence,neoliberalismisfound—indeed,

canonlybefound—inanarrayrangeofgovernanceregimes,socialformations,political-

economicsettings,andconjuncturalarticulations.Analyticallyinconvenientasthismay

be,neoliberalismcannotbefixed.Asaresult,wemaintainthatadequateconceptions

ofneoliberalismmustnotonlybecontextualized,theymustbecross-contextualtoo,

spanningandaccountingforbothspatialdifferentiationandtemporalevolution;

18

accountingforthespecificitiesofembeddedformations,theorizationmustalsoreach

acrossamultiplicityoftheseformationsinbothtimeandspace;andtheymustbe

attentivetotheconstitutiveconnectionsandregulatoryrelaysbetweenactuallyexisting

formations,whicharethesourceofmore-than-localdynamicsandaplethoraof

citational,cumulative,andcombinatorialeffects.

Thenonlinear,polycentric,andpath-makingcourseofreal-world

neoliberalizationcannotbereducedtoasingularprocessofenactingapreordainedplan

orgranddesign.(Fromthebeginning,theideaofactuallyexistingneoliberalismwasan

attempttounderscorethiscondition.)Sinceneoliberalizationisnottrendingtowardsa

unified,‘advanced’,orglobalstate,itcharacteristicallyexhibitsaroilingdynamic,

markedbyserialpolicyfailureandimprovisedadaptation,andbycombativeand

combustibleencounterswithobstaclesandcounter-movements.Itsdeterminedyet

meanderingcoursethereforecannotbereducedtooneofmanifestdestiny.Instead,it

hasbeenforgedthroughawiderangeofopportunisticoffensives,path-testing

experiments,pragmaticworkarounds,andon-the-hoofimprovisations,whichinpractice

willdepartsignificantlyandrepeatedlyfromtheidealisticvisionsofneoliberaltheories,

evenasthesetheoriesretainatutelarysignificance,asguidepoststoapropercourse,if

notapracticallyattainabledestination.

Thisisonereasonwhyitcanbehelpfultoplace,indialecticaltension,the

conditionsofsituatedoractuallyexistingformationswithongoingprogramsof

neoliberalrestructuring,andindeedtodefineneoliberalismwithrespecttothewave-

likebutcontradictorydynamicsofthelatter(asarestructuringethosandprogrammatic

rationality),ratherthaninrelationtoanidealizedend-state,orsomesupposedly

ultimateform.Thezigzaggingcourseofneoliberalizationneverdescribesatidy

transitionfromregulatedtoderegulatedmarkets,orfrombiggovernmenttosmaller

states,butismorelikelytoresultinaplethoraofcontradictorygyrations,u-turns,and

midcourseadjustmentsaroundandacrosstheterrainsofsocialregulation,institutional

reinvention,andpoliticalcontestation.Inthisrespect,neoliberalismcanbeunderstood

tobebothacrisis-makingandacrisis-managingproject.Itisprone—andnotby

19

accidentbutbydesign—tointernallygeneratedcrisesofmalregulation,excess

marketization,andoverexploitation,justasithasdemonstratedcapacitiesforresilience

andreinvention,andanabilitytoexploitthesesamecrisesinthecourseof(andindeed

intheserviceof)itsownadaptivereinvention.

Analyticallyspeaking,thisisPolanyianterritory.AsDamienCahill(2012:115)

hasargued,‘thediscrepancybetweenneoliberaltheoryandpractice[liesin]thefailure

ofneoliberaltheorytorecognizetheinherentlysociallyembeddednatureofthe

capitalisteconomy’.Programsofneoliberalreformmaybeconsequentialintermsof

reshapingsocialreality,butthisdoesnotmeanthattheycandenyordefythisreality.

Thefactthatthesetransformativeprogramsareantagonisticallyembeddeddemands

thatattentionispaid,simultaneously,totransformativerationalitiesandprosaic

practice.Ontheirown,purelyabstractorideationalaccountsareinsufficient,butsoare

thoseresolutelyconcreteanalysesthatdetachsocialandinstitutionalspecificitiesfrom

widerfieldsofideologicalandinstitutionalreproduction.Eventhoughneoliberal

theoriesaredestinedalwaystobefrustrated,overandoveragaintheyhave

demonstratedacapacitytoinspire,direct,andprioritizeprogramsofsocioeconomic

transformationandstaterestructuring;theireffectistoinvokeaprogrammaticcourse

ofaction.(Thisissomethingthatthoseskepticalofcriticaltheoriesofneoliberalization

repeatedlymiss,intheircomplaintsaboutatendencytoexaggeratethepolitical-

economiccoherenceoftheprocess/project,whileunderestimatingtheinherent

‘messiness’ofsocialandinstitutionallife.Actuallyexistingneoliberalizationsare

dialogicallyconnectedwithwhatremainaspirational,frontal,andstrategicvisions,even

astheyareneverreducibletothem.)Hencetheneedtoholdthetheory(orstrong

discourse)ofneoliberalismindialecticaltensionwithanextant(andmoving)arrayof

actualoutcomes.Actuallyexistingneoliberalismsdonotexist,inthissense,

‘downstream’fromthefoundingideationaltextsorideologicalcommandingheights;

theirnecessarilyprosaicandsomewaywaywardexistencespeakstothewaysinwhich

neoliberalnostrumshavebeenrepeatedlyadjustedverymuchinconjunctionwiththe

vagariesofpractice,politicalopportunism,andchancediscovery,cominglingand

20

combiningwiththeirothers,evenastheyremainindialoguewithamatrixof

policymakingprinciples,receivedaxioms,andidealizedcommitments.Toinvoke

‘contradictions’hereisnotjustanexplanatoryget-outclause;itspeakstothecharacter

ofneoliberalizationasarealizedprocess.

Defininganddelimitingneoliberalizationcanneverbe‘quiteassimpleaslining

upalistofattributes[like]privatization,deregulationandthelimitedstate,andshowing

whetherornottheycorrespondtothecurrent“institutionalreality”ofstate’(Dean,

2012:75).Consistentwithitslogicofrestructuring,neoliberalizationactsonand

throughtheseinstitutionallandscapes;itisnotastaticneoliberalism.Consequently,

theorizingexclusivelywithinthedomainofconcretestateorsocialformsisnecessary,

butitisnotmethodologicallysufficient.Itmaybehelpfultorecallthatneoliberalism

shouldnotbepresumedtodisplayanincipientunityoremergentcoherence;butitis

alsoimportanttorecognizetheextenttowhichthehegemonicgripofneoliberal

ideologyismanifestintheformofsustainedpoliticalpressureandentrenchedstrategic

incentivesformarket-oriented,competitive,andvoluntaristmodesofgovernance,

basedontheprinciplesofdevolvedandoutsourcedresponsibility—workingineffectto

shapeanideologicallycircumscribedregulatorysolutionspace.Thisishow

neoliberalismframes,constrains,andchannelsthefieldofthepoliticallyvisibleand

tractable.Thepost-2008globalfinancialcrisiswasacaseinpoint:withinmonthsofthe

WallStreetcrash,thespectrumofpoliticallyacceptable(evenviable)policysolutions

collapsedintoafamiliarpackageoftaxcuts,austeritybudgeting,monetary

manipulation,devolvedfinancialdiscipline,andlight-touchintervention,whilerelatively

mainstreamoptionslikeTobintaxes,debtcancellation,grassrootsstimulus

programming,and(even)assertivereregulationofthebankingsectorwerepromptly

deemedbeyondthepale(seePecketal.,2010;PeckandWhiteside,2016).

Yettheneoliberalprojectvisualizesafuturethatcannotbeborn,evenasit

doggedlypursuesthepathofdismantlinganddisablingantitheticalsocialandstate

formations(includingcollectiveprovisioning,deliberativeplanningsystems,andregimes

ofprogressiveredistribution).Itmaygoalongwaytowardsdismantling‘Leviathan’,

21

whileneverapproachingthepromisedlandofmarketfreedoms.Onthecontrary,some

trajectoriesof‘late’neoliberalismmaybesystematicallypronetoitsveryownformsof

technocraticand(super)managerialbloat,suchthattheycometoresemblenotsomuch

anewLeviathanbut‘Behemoth’(seeChaudharyandChappe,2016).Thevagariousand

crisis-strewncourseofneoliberalizationinvariablytrimssharplyawayfromcertainforms

of‘statist’socialformations,evenasitsbranchingtrajectoriesdonotresemblearoyal

roadtofree-marketnirvana.Thisalsoaccountsforthefactthatneoliberalismhasnever

beenassociatedwithastableortendentialinstitutionalcore,butinsteadadaptsand

improviseswithinideologicalandfiscalparameters,routinelyresortingtochanneled

andfilteredformsofexperimentationandopportunism—governedbyaregimeof

socio-regulatoryselectivityfavoringmarket-basedandmarket-likestrategies,

supplementedwithanallowanceforcorporateandelitestatesofexception.Forthese

reasons,theprojectofneoliberalismcontinuestoevolve,bothasagoverningstrategy

andasapolicypackage,lurchingintoandthroughmomentsofcrisisandreinvention.

Thiscanbeseenasareflectionofitsownlimitations,frailties,andblindspots(suchas

tendenciesforshort-termismandspeculativeexcess,indifferencetowardsocialand

ecologicalexternalities),butalsoaproclivityforworkingaround,selectively

undermining,andtacticallytargetingsourcesofoppositionandresistance.

Thissaid,whiletheevolvinggeographicaldynamicsofneoliberalizationmaybe

complexandconjunctural,thisdoesnotmeanthattheyarechaotic,unprincipled,and

unpatterned.Tothecontrary,thelongarcofneoliberalintensificationsincethe1970s

hasbeenassociatedwitharegressivedeepeningandcumulativeembeddingofmarket-

orientednormsofgovernance,whichhaverecursivelyremadereality,ifnotexactlyin

theirownimage,inwaysthathavebecomemutuallycongruentonatransnationalscale.

Whatwehaveelsewhereexploredundertherubricofvariegatedneoliberalization(see

Brenneretal.,2010b)entailsmorethantheunrulyproliferation,orrandomsprawl,of

geoinstitutionaldifference,butresultsfromtheinterplayoftwomodalitiesofuneven

development.First,wehavearguedthatunevendevelopmentisanecessarycondition

ofneoliberalization:theearliest(state)projectsforneoliberalizationwerelaunched

22

underquiteparticularcircumstances(compare,forexample,Chilecirca1973withthe

UnitedStatescirca1980).Thesefrontalprogramsofrestructuringdisplayedanumber

familyresemblances(intermsofsharedrationales,techniques,andreformrepertoires),

butinasfarastheywerealsoprofoundlyreactionaryprojects,attacking,reforming,and

replacinganarrayof‘inherited’institutionsandsocialsettlements,theirrevealed

geographiesechoapath-shapingarrayof‘legacystruggles’withenduringconsequences

forthecourseandcharacterofsubsequentreformprograms.Theseandotherprojects

ofneoliberaltransformationconsequentlytookrootindifferentsoils,withimplications

forthesequencingofreforms,forthepatterningandoutcomeofsocialstruggles,for

politicalopportunismandstrategicexperimentation,andfortheconstruction,

consumption,andcirculationofpolicymodelsthathaveprovedtobeanythingbut

transitoryortrivial.Andsinceallsuchprojectsareultimately‘incompletable’,nomatter

howdeeplyinscribedormutuallyreferentialtheybecome,theresultinggeographiesare

nevertobecompletelywashedawayunderatideofconvergentdevelopment.

Second,whileneoliberalismcanonlyexist,inthissense,inunevenlydeveloped

form,itisalsonecessarytorecognizethattherehasbeen(inparallelwiththesemultiple

neoliberalizationsatthescaleofparticularsocialformations)anongoing

neoliberalizationofunevendevelopmentitself.Herewerefertotheconstitutionand

continualreconstitutionofmarket-orientedandcorporate-centricframeworksfor

macrospatialregulation,orwhatwehavecalledrule-regimes,whichgovernprocesses

ofregulatoryexperimentationandthecross-jurisdictionalmovementofpolicymodels

(Brenneretal.,2010b).Ifeachprogramofneoliberalreformiscontextuallyspecific,

thesedevelopmentsrefertothe(macroormeta)contextforthosecontexts,and

includethe‘constitutionalization’ofmarket-orientedrulesofthegame,notleast

throughaweboftreaties,accords,andsanctions;thebuild-outofsoftinfrastructures

forpolicylearningandexchange,accompaniedbythethickening,channeling,and

intensificationof(fast)policy‘transfers’;andthefinancializationandheightened

‘competitivity’ofinterjurisdictionalrelations,extendingtopatternedregimesoffiscal

23

disciplines,incentives,andmodesofgovernance(seeGillandCutler,2014;Duméniland

Lévy,2011;Kotz,2015;PeckandTheodore,2015).

Overtime,theseinterlinkedprocesses—concerningtheunevendevelopmentof

neoliberalizationontheonehandandtheneoliberalizationofunevendevelopmenton

theother—haveshapedameta-geographyofneoliberalismmarkednotbyincipient

homogenizationbutbycombinatorialintensificationacrossconjuncturalformations.

Thisshift,fromanemergentandarchipelagictoanintegratedandhegemonicpattern,

wehaveelsewherecharacterizedasacumulativemovementfrom‘disarticulated’to

‘deepening’neoliberalization(Brenneretal.,2010a).Thedisarticulatedneoliberalism(s)

ofthe1970sandearly1980smadeupanon-contiguousmapof‘local’transformations,

amongstwhichtherewashardlyasharedorsingulartemplate.Furtherroundsof

neoliberalizationhavebeenlayeredoverandacrossthispatchworkpattern,overtime

contributingtotheentrenchmentofawidelygeneralized,indeedtendentially

globalizing,market-disciplinaryoperatingenvironment,jointlyconstitutedwitha

plethoraofsubsequentneoliberalizations.Bothinprincipleandinpractice,these‘later’

neoliberalizationsarenolesscontext-andpath-dependentthantheirpredecessors,

evenastheyhavebeeninterdigitatedwithdifferentroundsofregulatory

experimentation,favoredpolicymodels,andmarketopportunity/pressure.Under

theseconditionsof‘deepening’neoliberalization,market-orientedregulatory

transformationshavebecomereflexivelyinterlinkedandinterpenetrated,asregimesof

meta-governancehavebeenvariouslyconsolidated,knittedtogether,shoredup,and

adapted.Torefertotheseasquasi-constitutionalsettlementsarguablyconfersupon

whatremaincontestedandcrisis-pronearrangementsanexaggerateddegreeof

institutionalstability,theperiodsincetheWallStreetcrashof2008seemingtoconfirm

boththeextenttowhichneoliberalorthodoxieshavebecomeentrenchedindominant

circuitsoffinancialandpoliticalpowerandtheapparentbrittlenessoftheseruling

schemesinthefaceofpersistentpolicyfailureandintensifyingpoliticaldiscontent.

Conclusion:redefinitions

24

Asweindicatedatthebeginningofthischapter,theworkingconceptofactuallyexisting

neoliberalismwasoriginallyformulatedasadeviceforgrapplingwiththeconfounding

complexitiesofneoliberalismasanunruly,polymorphic,anddiscrepantsocial

formation,asamodeofregulationwrappedin(self)delusionand(purposeful)

misrepresentation,andasanhistorical-geographicalprocess(re)producedthrough

unevendevelopment.Fromthispointofdeparture,thenotionofactuallyexisting

neoliberalismwouldsubsequentlycometoserveathreefoldanalyticalpurpose.First,it

calledattentiontothenecessary(butstillgenerative)discrepanciesbetween

neoliberalismasatutelarytheoryanditsevidentlyvariegatedpractice,betweenthe

utopianideologyofthefree-marketcounterrevolutionanditsearthlymanifestations,

andbetweentheprogrammaticambitionofthisfrontaldiscourseanditsfrustrated,

compromised,crisis-proneandyetrestlesslyexperimentalform.Second,it

problematizedthecomplex,contingent,andcontestedwaysinwhichneoliberal

restructuringstrategiesinteractwithpre-existingandcoexistingusesofspace,

institutionalconfigurations,andconstellationsofsociopoliticalpower.Andthird,it

underscoredthebasicclaimthatunevenspatialdevelopmenthasallalongbeenintegral

totheconditionsofexistenceandrelationaldynamicsofneoliberalizationasa

polymorphichistoricalprocess,andnotmerelyasourceofcontingentvariationor

downstream‘aftereffects’.Neoliberalizationwasneveraboutthestraightforward

implementationofaprescribedtemplateorpolicymakingfix;itwasconstructed

conjuncturally,throughsituatedstrugglesandconflicts,andithasfunctioned,

adaptively,throughtrial-and-errorexperimentation,moreoftenthannotunder

conditionsofaggravatedstress,politicalconflict,oroutrightcrisis,suchthatendemic

policyfailure,emergencygovernance,andpathfindingexplorationhavebecome

normalizedconditions,foralloftheirdysfunctionalanddisruptiveconsequences.

Itfollowsthatcriticalanalysesofneoliberalism,neoliberalization,andneoliberal

hegemonymustbeattentivetotheconstitutiveandstructuringforcesofcombinedand

unevendevelopment—notasmerevariationfoundaftersomeoriginating,singular

25

moment,butasa‘bakedin’condition.Neoliberalismcanonlyexistinconjunctural

form(s),anditcanonlybeproperlyunderstoodbywayofcross-conjuncturalanalysis:in

thiscontext,itisnecessary,butnotentirelysufficient,totheorizefromsitesof

divergenceordiscrepancy(recognizingthatthiscanserveasaconstructiveantidoteto

paradigmaticorcentrictheorizing);theorizationmustalsoextendacrossthesesitesof

divergenceordiscrepancy(eachandeverysiteofactuallyexistingneoliberalization

displayingdifferences,bothfromthetextbookvisionandfromotheractuallyexisting

cases,thesebeingdifferencesneverthelessmade‘inconnection’,andovertime,

throughincreasinglyintenseformsofinterconnection).Thesearethegroundsonwhich

wehavemadethecasethatcriticalstudiesofneoliberalismmustnotonlybe

contextualized,forinstancethroughtherecognitionof‘local’conditionsanddistinctive

hybrids;theymustalsoattendtothemore-then-the-sum-of-the-partscontextofthose

particularcontexts,andtothewiderpatterningofrestructuringdynamicsexhibited

acrosscases,sites,andconjunctures.

Furthermore,becauseneoliberalismisdestinedtoremainathwartedtotality

andnever-to-be-realizeduniversal,dwellinginatypicallyantagonisticfashionwithits

others,thesecriticalinvestigationsmustalwaysextendintoextra-neoliberalterrains,to

takeaccountofthecharacterofthevolatilehybridsthatarethe(oftenunwilling)hosts

for,andvictimsof,programsofneoliberaltransformation.Thedynamicmappingof

thesemongrelformationsandtheconnectiverelationsbetweenthem—thatis,tracing

theunevenspatialdevelopmentofneoliberalizationamongstitsothers—holdsthekey

tounderstandinghowneoliberalismhasbeenreproduced,systematically,throughand

acrossawiderangeofdiscrepantformations.Itfollowsthatcriticalanalysesof

neoliberalism,neoliberalization,andneoliberalhegemonymustalsoseektoencompass

twoprincipalarcsofdifference—onetemporal,theotherspatial.Inthetemporal

domain,theseanalysesshouldtakeaccountofboththedestructive(orroll-back)

momentsofneoliberalizationanditscreative(orroll-out)moments,jointlyconstituted

asthesehavesooftenbecome.Inthespatialdomain,theyshouldattendtothe

26

geographicalvariegationthatisrevealedacrosstheprocesses,projects,andpracticesof

neoliberalization,andtowhatarealwaysmovingterrainsoftransformation.

Whileitissometimes(ab)usedinsuchways,itshouldbeclearnowthatthe

conceptofneoliberalismisnotreallyconduciveeithertoshorthandortobroad-brush

application.Rather,processualunderstandingsofneoliberalization,marriedtothe

notionofactuallyexistingneoliberalismasamarkerof(inescapable)uneven

development,enabletheongoingproblematizationofneoliberalism,boththeoretically

andpolitically.Inthiscontext,thedecidedlyunlovedandinelegant‘rascalconcept’,

neoliberalismmightstillbetheleast-badformulationthatwehavetodescribethe

hegemonicspacethatStuartHalloncecalledthe‘market-forcesconjuncture’,

acknowledgingthatthis‘inadequateword[remains]theonlyonewehavefor

characterisingwhatdefinesthewholearc’(HallandMassey,2010:66).Ifneoliberalism

defines,atleastprovisionally,apoliticalandanalyticalproblemspace,shapedasmuch

byenduringcontradictionsasbyincipientlogics,theconjuncturalunderstandingof

actuallyexistingneoliberalismofferedherecarrieswithitanactivepresumptionagainst

foreclosure.Evenasneoliberalismmayhavecometodominatesomanyoftheterrains

ofsocialstruggle,itcanneverfullymonopolizethoseterrains;alternativesocialand

institutionalarrangementsarebothco-presentandomnipresent,eveniftheyhavebeen

subjecttosubordinationandsuppression.Furthermore,theverygeographical

unevennessofthisterrainmeansthatthepotentialfortranscendenceissimilarlyever-

present,ifintrinsicallyunpredictableinform,timing,andeffect(seeSader,2011).As

StuartHall(2011:727)alwaysmaintained,thisisonereasonwhyoursocialtheories,

likehistoryitself,mustretain‘anopenhorizontowardsthefuture’.

27

ReferencesBan,Cornel(2016)RulingIdeas:HowGlobalNeoliberalismGoesLocal.Oxford:Oxford

UniversityPress.

Bourdieu,Pierre(1998)ActsofResistance.Cambridge:Polity.

Bowman,Sam(2016)‘Comingoutasneoliberals’,AdamSmithInstitute,October11,availableat:http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/coming-out-as-neoliberals.

Brenner,Neil,Peck,JamieandTheodore,Nik(2010a)‘Afterneoliberalization?’Globalizations,7(3):327-45.

Brenner,Neil,Peck,JamieandTheodore,Nik(2010b)‘Variegatedneoliberalization:geographies,modalities,pathways’,GlobalNetworks,10(2):1-41.

Brenner,Neil,Peck,JamieandTheodore,Nik(2014)‘Newconstitutionalismandvariegatedneo-liberalization’,inStephenGillandA.ClaireCutler(eds.)NewConstitutionalismandWorldOrder.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.126-42.

Brenner,NeilandTheodore,Nik(2002a)‘Citiesandthegeographiesof“actuallyexistingneoliberalism”’,Antipode,34(3):349-79.

Brenner,NeilandTheodore,Nik(eds.)(2002b)SpacesofNeoliberalism:UrbanRestructuringinNorthAmericaandWesternEurope.Oxford:Blackwell.

Brown,Wendy(2015)Undoingthedemos:neoliberalism’sstealthrevolution.NewYork:Zone.

Cahill,Damien(2012)‘Theembeddedneoliberaleconomy’,inDamienCahill,LindyEdwardsandFrankStilwell(eds.)Neoliberalism:Beyondthefreemarket.Cheltenham:EdwardElgar,pp.110-27.

Chaudhary,AjaySinghandChappe,Raphaële(2016)‘Thesupermanagerialreich’,LosAngelesReviewofBooks,November7,availableathttps://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-supermanagerial-reich/.

Clarke,John(2008)‘Livingwith/inandwithoutneo-liberalism’,Focaal,51:135–47.

Dean,Mitchell(2012).‘Freeeconomy,strongstate’,inDamienCahill,LindyEdwardsandFrankStilwell(eds.)Neoliberalism:Beyondthefreemarket.Cheltenham:EdwardElgar,pp.69-89.

Duménil,GérardandLévy,Dominique(2011)TheCrisisofNeoliberalism.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Ferguson,James(2010)‘Theusesofneoliberalism’,Antipode,41(1):166-84.

28

Fraser,Nancy(2017)‘Theendofprogressiveneoliberalism’,Dissent,January2,availableathttps://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/progressive-neoliberalism-reactionary-populism-nancy-fraser.

Gill,StephenandCutler,A.Claire(2014)(eds.)NewConstitutionalismandWorldOrder.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Gledhill,John(2004)‘Neoliberalism’,inDavidNugentandJoanVincent(eds.)ACompaniontotheAnthropologyofPolitics.Oxford:Blackwell,pp.332-48.

Goldstein,DanielM.(2012)‘Decolonialising“actuallyexistingneoliberalism”’,SocialAnthropology/AnthropologieSociale,20(3),304-9.

Hall,Stuart(2003)‘NewLabour’sdouble-shuffle’,Soundings,24:10-24.

Hall,Stuart(2011)‘Theneo-liberalrevolution’,CulturalStudies,25(6):705–28.

Hall,StuartandMassey,Doreen(2010)‘Interpretingthecrisis’,Soundings,44:57-71.

Hilgers,Mathieu(2012)‘Thehistoricityoftheneoliberalstate’,SocialAnthropology/AnthropologieSociale,20(1):80–94.

Kotz,D.M.(2015)TheRiseandFallofNeoliberalCapitalism.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Krippner,GretaR.(2002)‘Theelusivemarket:embeddednessandtheparadigmofeconomicsociology’,TheoryandSociety30(6):775–810.

LeGalès,Patrick(2016)‘Neoliberalismandurbanchange:stretchingagoodideatoofar?’Territory,PoliticsandGovernance,4(2):1–19.

Naím,Moises(2000)‘WashingtonconsensusorWashingtonconfusion?’ForeignPolicy,118:87-103.

Peck,Jamie(2010)ConstructionsofNeoliberalReason.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Peck,Jamie(2013)‘Explaining(with)neoliberalism’,Territory,Politics,Governance,1(2):132–57.

Peck,Jamie(2017)‘Transatlanticcity,part1:conjuncturalurbanism’,UrbanStudies,54(1),3-40.

Peck,Jamie(2018)‘Preface’,thisvolume.

Peck,Jamie,Theodore,Nik(2015)FastPolicy:ExperimentalStatecraftattheThresholdsofNeoliberalism.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Peck,Jamie,Theodore,NikandBrenner,Neil(2009)‘Neoliberalurbanism:models,moments,andmutations’,SAISReviewofInternationalAffairs,29(1):49-66.

Peck,Jamie,Theodore,NikandBrenner,Neil(2010)‘Postneoliberalismanditsmalcontents’,Antipode,41(1):94-116.

Peck,JamieandTickell,Adam(2002)‘Neoliberalizingspace’,Antipode,34(3):380-404.

29

Peck,JamieandWhiteside,Heather(2016)‘FinancializingDetroit’,EconomicGeography,92(3):235-68.

Pirie,Madsen(2014)‘Lookingattheworldthroughneo-liberaleyes’,AdamSmithInstitute,August20,availableat:http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/thinkpieces/looking-at-the-world-through-neo-liberal-eyes-2.

Sader,E.(2011)TheNewMole.London:Verso.

Vengopal,Rajesh(2015)‘Neoliberalismasaconcept’,EconomyandSociety,44(2):165–87.