"Neoliberalism" is one of those terms tossed around by both those who know what they're talking about and those who have absolutely no idea. It certainlyfeelsgood to say, whether in derision or in earnest deployment, and it's also something powerfully descriptive. But like any other complex concept, the definition of neoliberalism is often in contestation.

As the Stanford anthropologist James Ferguson wrote in his essay, "Uses of Neoliberalism," there is this "huge variation" in the way that the term is used. But he offers some helpful pointers:

也许在最严格的意义上，新自由主义指的是一种宏观经济学说(在这个意义上，它是一种真正的“主义”)。这一原则的关键要素有各种各样的描述，但总是包括私营企业的稳定和对国家的怀疑，以及有时被称为“自由市场崇拜”和提倡取消关税、放松货币管制，以及部署“企业模式”，这将允许国家本身“像企业一样运行”。'

Alternatively, but relatedley, it can be also used to refer to "a regime of policies and practices" to forward these interests, that is, what the anthropologist David Harvey has called "a class project" designed to further enrich the "holders of capital," a project inaugurated perhaps in the inaugurations of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. In a time of unconscionable wealth inequality, tax cuts for the rich, and the dismantling of public services, among other things, it's hard to resist the idea it's getting at something here.

Recently neoliberalism has made headlines again as the subject ofa popular article inThe Guardian, identifiying it as the root of all our problems. Historians, anthropologists, political theorists, and the like, have made valuable contributions to our understanding of the term and this historical situation of political and economic dismay. Does philosophy have something more to add?

For starters, check out the interview above on neoliberalism with George Monbiot, author ofHow Did We Get Into This Mess?(Verso Books), in which he calls neoliberalism a "self-serving racket."