Ill-neoliberalism

In a recent contribution Hendrikse (2018) has coined the concept of neo-illiberalism to signify mainstreaming of illiberal doctrines among neoliberal elites, thereby signifying a ‘mutation and restoration of transatlantic neoliberalism’. After a critical appraisal of his concept, this contribution argues that it is too early to claim that neoliberalism is mutated and suggests that the present conjuncture can better be termed ill-neoliberal instead. Following numerous scholars who have argued that we have arrived at an interregnum, I argue, also by applying Gramscian framework, that neoliberalism is increasingly malfunctioning, ‘ill’ or even dying, while something new is yet to be born. Yet in contrast to those who apply a Gramscian approach, I do not regard the rise of Trump or the European far right as ‘morbid symptoms’, but as attempted remedies (or authoritarian restorations) for neoliberalism. Neoliberal elites, somewhat reluctantly, welcome illiberal actors and doctrines in an effort to keep existing hierarchies in place or even restore old ones, now by even more authoritarian means. This transformation in the transatlantic neoliberal heartlands towards more illiberal regimes differs, then, from the emerging (and already) illiberal or authoritarian world powers such as China. If we were to accept the validity of the term ‘neo-illiberalism’ this should be exclusively applied to those regimes that are consistently illiberal, but increasingly rely on an ever-growing private economy (cf. Aiyar. 2016). Yet, whether such powers will be able to install a new (global) order depends foremost on the ability of the transatlantic heartlands to overcome neoliberalism. The article therefore concludes by pointing at some outlooks for the renewal and further contestation of an increasingly malfunctioning neoliberalism.