Review by Anthony J. Evans
In his recent book, co-authored with Peter Hutchison, George Monbiot makes a distinction between a bridging network (which brings together people from different groups) and a bonding network (which strengthens the ties of those within the same group). But is he sincere in his claim to want to seek dialogue between different groups? Despite not being the target audience for The Invisible Doctrine: The Secret History of Neoliberalism, I found it to be entertaining and well worth reading. With that in mind, I wish to highlight four claims that Monbiot makes, which I believe constitute a link to the intellectual foundations of the IEA.
1. A commercial society is good and just.
Monbiot makes it clear that his target is capitalism, not commerce. And because he uses an idiosyncratic definition of capitalism, it is important to avoid letting a semantic debate obscure a substantive one. To the extent to which free market economists advocate the traditional marketplace, where small traders engage in voluntary exchange, Monbiot is on board. Economists would probably emphasise that this rests on an assumption of competition, and Monbiot rejects competition as being a defining necessity of social coordination, but I suspect that even large traders, if they result from economies of scale, and don’t abuse their monopoly power to exploit consumers, are morally OK. The issue for Marxists is the claim that capitalism generates increased concentrations of capital. The issue for free market economists is that the state wields powers that can protect large companies from their need to provide goods and services that genuinely satisfy consumers. This just comes down to whether you pin the blame for an unhealthy reliance between business and the government on the former or the latter. Perhaps crony capitalism and capitalism are one and the same. If so, let’s agree on the importance of a commercial society.
2. Friedrich Hayek is a relevant and insightful scholar.
Monbiot criticises neoliberalism for neglecting the concept of complexity, arguing that:
“All complex systems possess emergency properties. This means that their components, however simple they each might be, behave in non-linear ways when they combine. Through networks created in ways that nobody could possibly have planned, via billions of randomly distributed decisions, they organize themselves — spontaneously creating order without central control” (p.112).
Keen readers should detect the Hayekian insights within that paragraph, which reveals that Hayek’s work on complexity theory is incredibly important. Whether Monbiot believes Hayekian scholars (people like Bruce Caldwell, Peter Boettke and Paul Lewis) misinterpret Hayek, or misrepresent him, I’m not sure (Monbiot doesn’t seem to engage with the scholarly literature on his intellectual foes). But to the extent to which Monbiot believes complexity theory is worthy of study, he is boosting the intellectual legacy of the 1974 Nobel Laureate.
3. Elinor Ostrom is a relevant and insightful scholar.
Monbiot does not advocate a large and strong state to take over all of the functions that he deems to have been inappropriately handed over to “the market”. He recognises the broad concept of governance, which relates to collective action problems that markets may struggle to resolve. Indeed, his suggested alternative to neoliberalism is a focus on protecting the commons. While he doesn’t devote significant time to the work of Elinor Ostrom, the 2009 Nobel Laureate showed how community action can navigate the middle ground between market and state to provide services that are consistent with local desires as well as long term, sustainable outcomes. Monbiot’s book constitutes a ringing endorsement of her intellectual legacy.
4. Growth isn’t everything.
Monbiot believes that the economy should not be run to promote growth at all costs, and that other concerns – chiefly those relating to environmental degradation – should be emphasised. So it’s important to note that since the 1970s there has been concerted attention to environmental protection and there has been a major slowdown in economic growth. Perhaps not sufficient to satisfy Monbiot, but he should take pride in his own role in persuading the public that a benefit of wealth is the resources and inclination to become better stewards of the natural planet. The peak of neoliberal dominance – the 1990s – coincided with unprecedented high living standards and material and cultural wellbeing in those countries that respected basic freedoms. That wasn’t just a result of globalisation, but also a sense of solidarity and concern for the marginalised. An important victory.
I don’t expect to agree with Monbiot about neoliberalism. He is an activist, and his objective is to move public opinion away from capitalism. I am an academic, trying to understand what neoliberalism is and whether it is a useful label to frame political debate. While Monbiot’s book claims to be about neoliberalism, it is really about capitalism, and that does call into question whether Monbiot’s use is a rhetorical ploy more than an attempt to enlighten. (I have previously argued that critics of neoliberalism struggle to distinguish between the Austrian school and neoclassical economics). But it is important to engage in a charitable reading and seek agreement where possible.
Most people who talk about neoliberalism despise it. And Monbiot is one of their chief cheerleaders. But there are important grounds for common understanding.
This article is a shortened version of: Exploring neoliberalism: Notes on Monbiot & Hutchison 2024)
