Adding Morals to Markets: Why markets and neo-liberalism are evolving and not dying

There seems to be a whole body of discussion on whether we are post neo-liberal now or in a revised form of it. But what on earth is neo-liberalism? It may be seen as the dominant political context but few people seem to define it.
Neo-liberalism – for me – is about a market-lead approach, freeing the markets to lead economic growth and service provision. It is also about rendering the individual citizen a contributor and beneficiary of a market system.

Now many against neo-liberalism argue that all values thus become economic, driven by targets and other social and philosophical values are lost.

Those in favour, see it as method for financial gains individually and nationally, smaller, more efficient government which leaves the citizen in control.

During the economic crisis it was deemed that neo-liberalism had failed; leaving banks and markets to decide the worth of anything lead to a melt-down. But it has to be questioned what form of neo-liberalism failed as it has gradually evolved.

Thatcher and Reagan are seen as the original creators of neo-liberalism though they themselves would not use the term nor particularly see themselves as liberals. They lead the large-scale opening up of markets, encouraging home ownership (and thus individual participation in a market) and changed our relationship with public services.

This model was then revised by Clinton and Blair with the so-called ‘third way’: put simply, market liberalism with a social conscience which meant more state investment in services. And yet for some this lacked the economic rigour for some and thus was doomed to failure.

The thing is that we are yet to see a huge divergence away from the models identified above. Despite the cycles of market growth and constriction, it appears to have worked as a model for increasing wealth. Indeed it is still ensuring huge growth in China, India and Brazil.

What 2008 did was make excessive money (and particularly bankers) look wrong and cause people to ask that a wider set of values be attributed to our markets, governance and, indeed, our lives. I can see neo-liberalism evolving to take on these values; causing a third stage of the concept’s development.

As someone researching European Higher Education, many of the key questions tied to it are attributed to neo-liberalism: the current form of the EU, globalisation, the market approach to HE, the understanding of education/learning etc. My tutor (rightly) argues that I need to challenge these ideas and look for alternative models. My problem is this: I have this feeling that, from my perspective, neo-liberalism works and – with the above evolution – should work better.

Due to neo-liberalism (though some would say despite it), universities have grown and been successful, people are more mobile and aware of the world and the individual’s capacity to bring about change have become clear.

There are faults and the current coalition government are aware of them. But what’s required is a revision to the neo-liberal model - rather than a whole scale scrapping of it as it remains an important model for our universities, country and world.