Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics

well good evening everybody my name is Joe Corbridge I'm one of the pro directors here at LSE and is a great pleasure to welcome you all to the school this evening for the lecture by dr. Daniel Stedman Jones on the topic of Masters of the Universe Hayek Friedman and the birth of neoliberal politics if you would now is the time please to turn off your mobile phones or any other irritating devices you'll all know because you've looked at the program that we not only have Daniel with us tonight but we have two respondents professor mark Pennington and professor Lord Skidelsky so the plan is that Daniel will speak first for about 20 or perhaps even 30 minutes Daniel received his PhD from the University of Pennsylvania and he currently works as a barrister in London the first question that I asked him when we were in the green room previously and he might share the answer with us is how precisely he found the time to write the book that he's going to be talking about tonight it's a book that I've read and that I greatly enjoyed our first respondent then will be mark professor Pennington who joins us from King's College London where he is a professor of public policy and political economy and marks latest book is called robust political economy our second respondent is Lord Skidelsky I think everybody here will know Lord Skidelsky it gives me great pleasure to say that many of you will know him of course as the prize-winning biographer of Lord Keynes gives me particular pleasure to say that this is the best biography that I have ever read the three volumes both because of the subject matter but also because of the scholarship the prose and the articulation but more recently Robert who is an emeritus professor of political economy at the University of Warwick is the co-author with his son Edward I think he's a philosopher of the book how much is enough which is really a meditation on the nature of the good so so much for introductions it's a great pleasure to have you all with us tonight and it's particularly a great pleasure Daniel to welcome you to the school once we've had your talk once we've had the respondents we'll obviously open it up to question and answers in usual way so welcome Thank You Stuart and thank you very much to all of you who've come I was a bit worried earlier that there may be no one here given how freezing cold it is and I almost got frostbite on the way over here thank you also to the LSE for hosting this event and it's a great pleasure to be here I apologize in advance if anyone had heard me on the radio earlier and I hope that there won't be too much repetition I was on thinking aloud earlier this afternoon had to get across London to come here this evening so I hope I won't repeat myself too much and thank you very much also to Robert and to mark who are speaking and responding to my talk tonight robert's work is a great example to any historian and his biography of keynes is indeed the best biography I think there I've read as well say thank you Robert for coming and mark mark marks birth that came up in 2011 is also fascinating for its reformulations of classical liberalism and the challenges to that perspective so I'll be very interested to hear what mark has to say in response t-to mine remarks and when I was lucky enough to get a review just before Christmas in the Wall Street Journal from a very eminent man called Kenneth minogue who is the president I think at least was last year the president of the Mont Pelerin Society which is one of the most important neoliberal organizations and he said in his review that my book was very intelligent but that it was compromised by too much adjective attitude and izing so I hope that some of my adjectives and attitudes tonight might provoke a bit of a good discussion both among my fellow panelists and also from the audience so the book is about the history of neoliberalism and neoliberalism in my in my telling really can I think can be split up greedily but usefully into three different phases the first would be its origins which were really in the interwar period in the 1930s and 40s or even starting in the 1920s in fact the second period is really the development and the breakthrough of neoliberal ideas and neoliberal thought in America and Britain primarily in the post-war period culminating in the period in the 1970s when I suppose you could characterize it as a political breakthrough took place in both those countries and then there's a third phase in the history of neoliberalism I think which is the which is the International spread of those ideas really out into global institutions like the the World Bank and the IMF and the WTO and the European Union and that takes place really after nineteen well the late 70s let's say my book is about that second period so it's really about the political breakthrough or how these ideas which originated in the interwar broke through into mainstream politics in both America and Britain I think it's worth beginning by discussing a little bit about what neoliberalism is what my definition of it might be whether there is one definition and about neoliberalism's place in the current political or current intellectual debate because I think neoliberalism is a very troubled and elusive concept it's always been treated on the Left I think as a sort of hated by word for malevolent globalization and the imposition of market liberalisation on the developing world and again that that sort of effort that that focus really is on that third phase if you like the period since 1980 or or there about where neoliberalism in a sense gate is taken to have gone global and dominates the policy agendas of global institutions which then impose those policies on the developing world through through market liberalization and financial straightening policies on the right however an I encountered this quite a lot in some of my interviews there there is a sort of a historical feeling about neoliberalism which is that neoliberal ideas the ideas of thinkers like Hayek and Friedman to the extent that they were influencing the political programs of politicians on the right side Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan's administration's at the fore most of that and was actually sort of triumphant success and that's Reagan and Thatcher and their colleagues were especially the the Thatcher and Reagan were whether heroes in this process in a sense in which they helped the British economy especially but the American economy to recover it recover their dynamism or their dynamic potential by for example helping to bring the power of trade unions or labor into line so you've got these two Poland that Poland polar opposites really in the way that neoliberalism has talked about and it's very little very seldom talked about in any with any sort of specificity and as a historian of course it was not one of my prime natives really in getting into the subject to try and be much more critical about what neoliberalism was what how it emerged how it differed from other types of liberalism and then how it developed historically over time in in different places so the transatlantic movement if you like of ideas between Europe and America was was was a was at the forefront of my of my questions and my and my research a protest which actually began I don't know from any of my former colleagues are here from demos but it began when I was working in a think tank called demos about 10 years ago and at that colleague of mine Rachel Chuck and and I were both thinking of trying to do a project on transatlantic policy transfer something we unfortunately never got around to but that sort of helped me we gave me a PhD topic so and here we are but for the purposes of the book I've defined neoliberalism as the free-market ideology based on individual liberty and limited government that connected human freedom to the actions of the rational self-interested actor in the competitive marketplace and I think that that that definition helps us to just capture what was what stays consistent in a sense about the ideas even though they do change from as you would expect from their origins in 30s and 40s up to up to the most recent manifestations of neoliberal thought so that that definition I hope helps to sort of give you a sense of the basic of what I take neoliberal ideas to be and obviously famous examples of neoliberal policies and particularly the policies that took hold first in the 60s and 70s are monetarism and which was obviously famously advocated by not an Friedman who's one of the central characters in the book and deregulation which was similarly pushed by George Stigler also of of the Chicago University and of the special cargo school so there's a t two good examples about which I'll I'll say a little bit more shortly and so that if one takes a historical perspective on what neoliberalism is it's more than one thing it's the first thing to say so despite the the tendency if you like to use it in journalism and in current debate and in social scientific and political scientific analysis as a sort of understood category it's it's very one has to be one has to be specific and break down the different types of neoliberalism and how it changes over time so if I now move to the argument of the book the the argument really begins by saying that neoliberal ideas predominantly originated in the interwar period in Europe there were American thinkers who were important in the earlier period certainly there was the first Chicago School economists especially Frank especially Henry cylons not Frank Knight although Frank might was important T and similarly there was the American journalist walter Lippmann he was a very important early influence on on these early debates but most of the early neoliberal is I think it's fair to say were European and they were responding to European there were people like friedrich hayek has been mentioned ludwig von mises another Austrian and Karl Popper a third Austrian emigres well they pop as an interesting figure but I can say a bit about that in a minute so there were some Austrians and then there were people there were people based in Germany particularly members of the freiburg school Vilhelm Rocca Volta yukkin and alexander rüstow all of whom were very important in this early period and similarly in France there were intellectuals about Raymond Errol and Louie Rozier and Jack roof and then finally it here in the LSE there was a large contingent of what Mark might call classical liberals but I but also I think at this point neoliberal neoliberal were thinkers led by Lionel Robbins and of course joined by Hayek and populated in the 40s as well so these early European neo liberals were responding I think quite quite clearly to European problems the fear of the spread of totalitarianism of both the left and the right of course they fled a lot of them from Nazi Germany but also there was a deep fear of communist totalitarianism and indeed the implications of the spread of communism so that was the first big driver behind early neoliberal thinking the second big driver I think was that and Wyatt in fact became neoliberalism was that there was the early neoliberal Hayek at I'll all considered themselves in a sense to be trying to traverse a middle way between two types of liberalism which they saw thought had failed in different ways the first of those was the was laissez-faire liberalism the the sort of liberalism that saw a very little role for the state except to defend private property it was known as the Nightwatchman state on the one hand and then on the other hand the more activist forms of liberal liberal thought which had become to become very important politically - in the first half of the 20th century and that was a sort of activist liberalism of Lloyd George of Herbert Henry Asquith and the early Edwardian liberal governments and the origin original moves towards the development of the welfare state and also of course in America Franklin Roosevelt well progressivism but then most importantly Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal in the 1930s so the early NEET the early neoliberal saw themselves as in a sense trying to get back to a classical tradition which in their in their minds went back to the 18th century and classical liberal thinkers like Locke hiim and most importantly of all Adam Smith so it's important to note that that was the early origins of neoliberal thought and at that point certainly throughout the 1930s and 1940s and looking at the work of people like Hayek and popper over which I I look up quite closely in the first chapter of the book they saw no at that point no conflict necessarily with a basic welfare state now it's debatable how much or how expansive that was to be but certainly it's interesting to note that that with the backdrop of the European problems of depression and war of the 1930s and 40s and certainly Hayek agreed in a sense that there was a need for a social safety now it was one of the arguments and the debates he had with Keynes actually was keynes criticized the road to serfdom for for this what he said where do you draw the line where does web the web does Hayek draw the line in terms of how much state intervention one might need because high it does acknowledge that you need to have some so it's important that in this early period there was not necessarily an incompatibility between the welfare state and the free end and what they saw was the free enterprise system secondly and a very important early emphasis of all of all these neoliberal thinkers was an emphasis on the best way to secure competition in the marketplace and an emphasis at that point on anti monopolistic policies which were primarily seen to originate in market failure this this begins to change I think as the locus of neoliberalism I think moves in the post-war period from Europe to America before that process happens it's just worth me taking a couple of minutes to describe what Hayek's intellectual strategy was because I had a very clear sense of what he was trying to do in the 1940s and it's not all about what hype does but at that point it is very important to focus on on what his intellectual strategy was because it it really did set the parameters in a sense for much of what came later and Hayek in the forties certainly looked and consciously sought to emulate early socialist success at early twentieth-century socialist success again with the Fabian's and the webs and the establishment of the LSE and the influence of the left in particular socialists not just here but in America too with the formation of think tanks the first think tanks first wave of think tanks the Brookings Institution in America but most importantly the Fabian Society here and what I took from this development if you like was that the Left had been incredibly successful by influencing intellectual elites that through through influencing the way that intellectuals discuss and talk about ideas and about politics then you do eventually have a political effect and the political success and that was evidenced in the successes of the Liberals and the Labour Party in the 40s and of course Roosevelt in America Hayek propounded his strategy or he he identified that this issue if you like and aimed to change well advocated that neoliberal thinking be the same in an article called the intellectuals and socialism which was a very important piece which really set out this strategy and his point was it if you could if you could influence and change intellectual thoughts by which he he he cast the net wide it was it was intellectuals across the peace really if he could influence the way that they discuss things and influence the way that they frame problems then eventually you would have political success so that was the the one dimension of his strategy the other was to set up the Mont Pelerin Society which was to bring together intellectuals journalists colonists philosophers from across Europe and America and wherever really they were located and bring them together to try to discuss how you could push neoliberal thinking forward and how you could spread it in the various pockets in which it was located around the world so that intellectual strategy I think is what then actually comes to fruition in post-war United States and also Britain it or at least its most successful in those two countries and as a sort of before before we talk about the post-war American I suppose an American centric or American dominated neoliberal thinking of the Chicago School in the Virginia school it's just important it's just worth noting that those and that those early neoliberal ideas really emerged in in their own political projects where perhaps the second more American dominated set of ideas reached it at the day under Thatcher that those early neoliberal ideas really came to fruition politically in post-war Germany and the policies of Ludwig Earhart the Chancellor sorry the finance minister took on rather than how he was the Chancellor and in the 1950s you get actually quite a consensus in German politics between the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats who come together around an idea about a competitive market economy that is also combined with with a welfare state so if we move into the post-war period I think that as I say the lake a lake this of neoliberal activity and the a liberal thinking moves I think from you from being predominantly European based to being pushed forward in America and it is really thinkers like Milton Friedman George Stigler and James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock who were the leaders of the of the Virginia school he begin to focus much more purely on market-based solutions to social Anakin policy there is a process in which is known perhaps slightly disparagingly as economics imperialism which is associated with the chicago school and that the idea of economics imperialism was just simply that market based analysis methodological individualism which had been elaborated by Milton Friedman in the early 1950s gets extended across into different areas that never been exposed or eat or analyzed really within within a market framework so you can analysis of new areas like crime and the family and regulation obviously and these these new areas become susceptible really to market analysis in the Chicago School approach I think that this process is important because it's less encumbered by a sense in which the welfare state needs to be combined it's not that it's not that these Chicago thinkers did not care at all about problems of poverty or problems of education or or health care it's just that they thought that the market could deliver more efficient and more effective alternative policy outcomes in those areas but I think that again it's important to note the backdrop really two bits of this changing this changing neoliberal thinking we're obviously in the interwar period you had the you had the backdrop of fascism communism depression the Second World War in the post-war period you have the Cold War and you have the you have the rising prosperity of the post-war boom of the post-war boom so I think it's that that's that's an important and importantly different atmosphere in which this thinking is taking place but I think one of the effects of the chicago and virginia virginia school approach i should say with the virginia school approach the idea to look at government public administration bureaucracies and apply again a market-based analysis and I know that's something I'm sure Michael will talk about but the point really about this emphasis on market market-based solutions in policy I think is that you get an emerging clarity for in political terms of the neoliberal message and I think that that's very important in the in the 60s and 70s because it becomes much more digestible and easily communicated and then of course the sort of the emblematic policies if you like of monetarism and deregulation are there and are communicated and known about well before the crises of the 1970s are allowed they're allowed policymakers to really take them up so I think that this is all obviously quite broad brush and but I think that there is this that there is this shift and it is noticeable and there is a difference in the development of neoliberal thinking but I think it still does remain and retain something distinctive distinctively neoliberal about it and we can come back to our opening definition I think that there is a a emphasis on the importance of the Act the rapp of the actions of consumers in the marketplace as being some some somehow connected or being an expression really of human freedom ludwig von mises actually makes this case most starkly in the 40s I think that in the in the marketplace you see people making their honest choices if you like and actually or James Buchanan put it another way and said that you know public choice theory of which he was the key proponent was politics without Raymond's so it's the idea that if you focus on people's real actions and consumption actually then you you get closer to what people really want and you get closer to productive outcomes that obviously can be debated but I think that's what that was the sort of emphasis and in the 70s I think you have a different process and I I'm not going to talk about it for too long because of course and you know in a sense it's another book what why did the left breakdown and why did live what was the crisis of liberalism and there's a huge literature on that of course as well but I think again using broad brush terms in the 70s you do have a crisis of the dominant policy paradigms Keynesian demand management was no longer working you have the amount you have stagflation which is low or no growth combined with inflation and and you really do get a cry see of multiple crises I suppose in in the different dominant approaches among policymakers in both America and Britain and monetarism and deregulation were two of the biggest examples that could be drawn on by policy makers so that leads I supposed to my to my to my third major thought about but arising out of the books argument which is that I think it's interesting to know that in the 1970s it's not actually in the first place policy makers on the on the in the Republican Party or the conservative party that drawn neoliberal ideas and the a liberal policies first it's actually the Carter Administration and the Callahan government one can obviously talk about how reluctant this was but it's certainly true that in both cases callahan begins to adopt at least a a slightly tighter approach to public spending and begins to adopt new targets around inflation rather than full employment and of course makes his his disavow it makes his famous speech at the labor tea conference in 1976 disavowing Keynesian demand management and explaining what friedman had been saying for a long time and what his advisor Peter Jay also thought which was the Keynesian demand management did it could lead to rising inflation and similarly in America you get Jimmy Carter he is actually one of the earliest earlier advocates of deregulation first in the airline industry and the transport sector and even some initial steps into financial deregulation and then of course Carter appoints pull Volcker to the to be the chair of the Federal Reserve and Paul Volcker does then consciously adopt a policy of high interest rates to try and bring inflation under control and is reappointed by Reagan in 1983 so again you have a sort of initial breakthrough on the on the left and the right and I don't think it's so much that they left was suddenly converted it's more just that there was a real need to look around for new policies because there were crises and problems that were but that the existing policy mechanisms didn't seem capable of solving so that that's what I want to say really about the books argument for now obviously I hate we can have more discussion as the next hour progresses but I'll just leave you perhaps with the following thought which is I wonder whether now is is a moment or post 2008 shall we say is a moment like the 1970s or whether in fact it neoliberalism or the neoliberal era or I suppose India's obviously ed Miliband made a speech and the year before last suggesting that he thought it was over but we do see a lot of evidence actually in both America and written of the endurance of neoliberal policy ideas or at least policy influences certainly in terms of market-based approaches to health and education and other public services but also in the continuing emphasis on both sides of the Atlantic on on keeping inflation under control and also using quantitative easing and monetary policy mechanisms to try to cope with the crisis which obviously I'm sure Robert can talk about t have their Keynesian origins as well and a perhaps a second final thought is in as we gear up for Cameron's speech on Europe on Friday or we all we worry about it it's it's very interesting to note that in the a liberal policies and neoliberal thinkers were very caring what they were characterised by their cosmopolitan nature and I think that one of the reasons for the successes of neoliberal thinking even whether we like it or whether we hate it is that it was very much in tune with many of the global economic changes that have that have been happening in the last thirty years of course they've been many victims of those changes too but and it'll be interesting going forward to see whether Cameron's approach to he would read renegotiation in fact to achieve certain sensual neoliberal tenants such as the holy grail of flexible labor markets it'll be interesting to see whether that approach is right or whether it works or whether in fact there's an alternative approach to European intra governmental cooperation so I'll leave it there for now and they're very much looking forward to hearing from long okay good evening everybody um I'm going to be disagreeing with quite a few of the things that are in Daniels book but I should say at the outset that if you haven't read the book already I strongly recommend that you do read it because I think it's a very very good book and it really is it's really worth the read now as I see it the book has got three objectives the first is to try to understand the historical circumstances and some of the intellectual personalities that gave rise to what has become rather annoyingly in my point of view come to be known as neoliberal politics the second objective is to provide a critical commentary on some of the ideas that constitute that neoliberal politics and thirdly I think in the conclusion of Daniels book there's an attempt to try to understand our contemporary economic predicament contemporary economic crisis as arriving in some sense as arising in some sense from the dominance of neoliberal politics for the last thirty years now I think with the first of these objectives looking at the personalities and events that gave rise to neoliberalism as we know it I think this book is a great success one gets a real sense of the events and the personalities involved in particular I like the honest portrayal of the crisis of Keynesian social democracy that many people perceived in the 1970s the stagflation period that Daniel just mentioned I think this comes in stark contrast to what I would describe as the Krugman it-- revisionism which depicts the 1970s as a kind of land of milk and honey which was progressing to utopia if only Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan hadn't popped up somehow out of nowhere to ruin the party now in terms of personalities there is some very interesting account of the disputes between various members of the Mont Pelerin society with regard to the case of the markets and have been how best to advance those arguments I mean the book is very strong in that regard one also gets a sense of how dependent the Mont Pelerin Society was in particular on the personalities of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek and also how in many ways this organization and the ideas that it advanced benefited from the good fortune of being in the right place at the right time whether right or wrong whether you agree with their ideas whether you disagree with their ideas you get the profound sense from writing down Daniels book that Friedman Hayek and other people in the Mont Pelerin society were motivated by the power of ideas they believed that Liberty as well as economic performance was under threat and that something needed to be done about it they were motivated by that belief however mistaken you think that belief may have been and in that regard I'd like to commend Daniels book in comparison to some other contributions which have come out in recent years in this area we've had for example the Marxist account presented in David Harvey's book a brief history of neoliberalism which depicts the emergence or the re-emergence of market liberal thinking in the post-war period as little more than a front for organized finance capital we've also had the non too subtle conspiracy theory characterized by the film arouse key volume the road to Mont Pelerin which attempts to depict Friedman and Hayek as intellectuals for hire compared to those books I think this book is a paragon of intellectual honesty and it's to be commended as such I think when we turn to the other purposes of Daniels book though I would judge it to be and I hope I'm not sounding too harsh here something of a failure it wants to offer a critical commentary on neoliberal ideas but in my view it never really engages with the content of these ideas on other than a superficial level now let me give you a couple of examples to illustrate the argument here we're told in Chapter 3 that neoliberal such as Friedman and Hayek were predominantly concerned with issues of economic efficiency and didn't pay any attention attention to the moral dimension in social life now reading this I found this to be a very strange claim Hayek wrote a lot of books and no other rather big books one of them law legislation and Liberty was a book specifically which addressed the question of what kind of moral framework is compatible with an open society or great society as he depicted it which in large measure reflects the interactions between many many different actors who are basically unknown to one another in any personal sense you may not agree with Hayek's analysis of what that moral framework should be but to say that the moral dimension gets no attention I think is a dubious claim to make another example on page 333 of the book we're told that neoliberals placed too much faith in the market because of an uncritical adherence to neoclassical general equilibrium theory and the rational expectations hypothesis you would never know from reading this part of the book that Hayek was perhaps the biggest critic of this very sort of reasoning and derive much of his support for market institutions precisely from a rejection of the general equilibrium framework of neoclassical economics this is completely missed in Daniels account of what Hayek's ideas actually are now maybe that what Daniel really aims to criticize here is not so much the intellectual substance of neoliberal ideas but the way they've been interpreted and implemented by politicians such as those involved in the factory government throughout the 1980s this from my point of view is one of the slight failings of the book it's never worked really clear whether what Daniel is doing is challenging the ideas of Friedman and Hayek themselves or whether he's challenging the way they were interpreted and implemented by politicians such as Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan that to my mind isn't clear from reading the book now my own view would be that even as an account of neoliberal politicians the analysis is if I may say a little bit flaky whether you agree with them or otherwise I think even a cursory listen to some of Margaret Thatcher's features from the 1980s reveals that the moral argument for relying on markets was always a key aspect of the arguments that that government actually made it wasn't just about economic efficiency it was an argument whether you liked it or otherwise about individual liberty likewise if you look at some of the policy areas where privatization measures for example were introduced it's a stretch to claim that general equilibrium theory Singh was behind these kind of policy measures if you look at the privatization of utilities in the UK and the regulatory structures which were introduced in this area they weren't informed by general equilibrium theory at all they were informed in large part by a Schumpeterian understanding of how a competitive economic system actually operates I think though from my point of view the biggest failing or the biggest weakness of the book relates to its third objective and this comes in the concluding chapters where there's an attempt to locate today's economic crisis in the dominance of neoliberal policies now I want to dwell on this aspect for the remainder of my remarks because this is the part of the book that I take the greatest issue with like many others Daniel is of the view that over the last thirty years we've experienced a period where virtually all policy areas I've seen the attempt to implement some kind of free-market economic doctrine into the policy areas concerned now Daniel has a phrase for this he calls it faith-based public policy the faith in question being the unquestioned belief that whenever and wherever possible we should introduce market type mechanisms because markets always deliver the goods now if I may say I believe the view that he puts forward in this context is what I would describe as guilty of faith-based historical analysis the faith being that if Thatcher Reagan the bushes and Blair spoke about deregulation unrolling back the frontiers of the state that this must actually have happened without any regard to the actual empirical evidence about whether these policies were actually put into practice now let me be clear what I'm suggesting here I'm not suggesting that market liberal ideas have had no impact in the last 30 years that would be an absurd claim to make privatization of state-owned industries flexible labor markets policies like that have been influenced by those kind of things what I would claim is that the impact of these ideas in the broadest fear of public policy in the welfare state has been vastly exaggerated and I think Daniel cooks contributes to that exaggeration let me give you a few examples we're told on page 268 that in health care in the UK we have seen a wholly inappropriate importation of free markets into the provision of public services I want to set aside whether you think markets are appropriate in health care or not and just leave you with the question of how's this actually happened if we look in the United States all of the policy movements over the last 20 or 30 years I've actually been away from free market solutions in healthcare towards greater regulation of market not only under Obama but also under George Bush if we look in Britain 30 years of neoliberalism has left us with a health service which is the least market oriented of any of the European healthcare systems the least market oriented of any of those systems and considerably less market oriented than the systems in France and Germany what about regulation another area that people talk about well I was fortunate enough to study a PhD here at the LSE in the mid 90s I was unfortunate enough you might say to choose as my topic the political economy of land use regulation or Town and Country Planning if you prefer as punishment for my various sins I had to read a whole catalogue of books which were examples of faith-based historical analysis books which claimed it effectively mrs. Thatcher had destroyed the Town and Country planning system that the market was now firmly in charge of land use allocation in the UK I didn't believe this so I thought I'd actually look up the gaiter what did I find I found that in the period that mrs. Thatcher was in office the level of expenditure on Town and Country Planning regulation in real terms increased by 40 percent and that the designated area of green belt land tripled if we go across the Atlantic we see a similar picture with regard to broader economic and social regulation in the United States George Washington University publishes an annual accounts of the level of regulatory expenditure in the United States it shows that between 1980 and 2010 real expenditure on economic and social regulation tripled well in advance of the rate of economic growth in the United States as a whole finally let's consider financial regulation Daniel's book takes the standard line that has dominated a lot of journalistic commentary following the economic in 2008 that's the line that we've seen over the last 30 years massive financial deregulation and that it's that financial deregulation that lies behind the recent economic crisis and the problems were still trying to extricate ourselves from in my view this is another example of faith-based historical analysis just about the only example of deregulation that this kind of thesis points to is the repeal of the glass-steagall Act in the United States without any attempt to actually specify how precisely the repeal of that act created the economic crisis in the British context has actually been very little in the way of financial deregulation pensions and insurance are far more regulated than they were in the 1980s one area where there has been some deregulation is in the area of securities where we had the big bang in 1986 but even then all that was happening was a replacement of a private club based form of regulation operated out of the City of London with a government-sponsored form of regulation now run by the financial standards authority this was not deregulation it was changing the locus of who actually engages in the regulation in the u.s. contact The Economist Peter back in Steven Hoggett of conducted analysis and analysis of financial regulation over the last 20 years they find that for every piece of financial deregulation that took place there were four further pieces of legislation which increased the overall level of regulation now if you're skeptical of these kind of claims I recommend that you read the excellent volume by Jeffrey Friedman and Vladimir Krauss engineering the financial crisis which documents how one of those regulatory changes in particular the adoption of adoption of the Basel Accord was actually one of the major causes underlying the recent economic crisis encouraging the securitization of risky mortgages in US banks okay so in my view to depict the last 30 years as one of untrammeled deregulation is highly inaccurate if we want to gain a better understanding of the successes and the failures of neoliberal politics we need an analytical history that can account both for the areas where deregulation has occurred and for those areas where deregulation and privatization manifestly have not occurred we need an account which can look at the coalitions of interests and ideas that have favoured deregulation and neoliberal is in some areas but which have proved very resistant to that process in other areas there's a good deal to enjoy and to praise in Daniels book but in my view the analytical history that I've just described as yet to be written thank you very much thanks very much mark our next respondent is Robert Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky I'm making the dangerous experiment of using my iPad tends to have a mind of its own I'm not going to do a review of Daniels book I think he can probably defend himself very effectively against some of the criticisms which I I don't think were merited but I first have to get some text in front of me and then I'll be able to get on with what I want to say because the other problem is that the battery is very low and some reason it doesn't want to come on now I think we're there or there for a bit now like I was a blank page okay um I think what Daniels book does is it does describe the march of neoliberalism through the institution's I mean as he said starting in the in the in roots in the 30s then through the universities think tanks and higher journalism the United States and Britain in the 1960s through to the 1980s and I mean I think the story is well known in general outline but he's brought a wonderful archival detail not least to the Battle of The Economist's and I love reading about that kind of stuff Harry Johnson and Hayek and you know how they also get all their letters have survived or a lot of them and they simply they they they they fight each other the Battle of The Economist is fascinating you think that economists are sort of a well mannered and a reasonable well-balanced people you should read some of those things how they accuse each other betrayal of I mean it's it's it's a wonderful story and it's very well it's very well told it hasn't been told really in that detail before but I I think I want to ask a question arising from it and this isn't this isn't a criticism of the book but it's just what I'm interested in and what I take out of the book and it's something I'm concerned with and that is what is the role of ideas in historical explanation broadly speaking do ideas furnish motives for action or only rationalizations for actions are decided on different grounds now it depends which set of actors you ask that question to I agree with what Mark said I mean I think thinkers on the scene must believe in the importance of ideas and otherwise they wouldn't be thinkers really what else is there said but that that that that doesn't mean that politicians do and and and politicians may simply use ideas when they feel the need for them without going into them very very deeply and and you find that politicians very rarely come into politics with a set of ideas which they deem it their task to apply or in in their political lives it's very rarely that they're very rather amorphous and what ideas did Tony Blair come into politics with and you may say he's you know he's an easy target but he was the lead of the Labour Party prime minister for you know ten years and one of the one of the greatest vote winners in fact the greatest vote winner that Labour's ever had when you actually look at what his ideas were mainly modernizing a society a bit of Christian socialism which he picked up in the intervals of playing rock music at Cambridge Christian communitarianism not socialism so I think I think the question is is then very then a very important now a related question and do we agree with Keynes that ideas are more important than vested interests this is a famous remark he made at the end of the general theory or to put it another way what is the relationships between ideas and the structures of power which is a question of course was sent back Western was central to Marx I was having lunch today with an economist who suggested that ideas are like clothes in a cupboard and nearly all the ideas needed for political action had already been thought of they'd been there for thousands of years actually and and and all they're simply taken out and worn as the situation as the situation when they're needed is that is that the correct question now to zoom in on Stedman Jones's question what calls the victory of neoliberalism over the then reigning Keynes in orthodoxy now there was a victory there was a shift I mean rubbish to say you know he got it wrong because the shift wasn't a hundred percent and of course we accept that but there was a shift and and I think anyone who was a Keynesian in the 1960s understands that there was a change of mood both in in thinking about the economy and in thinking about the role of the state the two was being linked so why why why was that there I think there are three pointers otherwise you nades it's a very complex question it isn't one one can debate the question of the shift on a purely intellectual play that is to locate the story in the battle of the universities over the causes of inflation and unemployment in shorthand keynes versus friedman one could discuss it in those terms and then say well friedman got the better of the argument perhaps or keynes got the better of the argument or he was dead but his followers did there's a closely related debate that goes on at that time which is a political economy debate about the size and role of the state which pits pits Hayek and also popper and other Austrians against the sort of socialists and Social Democrats which is itself a reflex of a much older debate in the 1930s about the role of planning so they're these sort of debates going on and their thinkers who are involved in them but but but I mean and you can tell the story in that in that in that form but even from this restricted perspective you can see a relationship between this battle and events in the real world and that is the problem for policy caused by the simultaneous rise of inflation and unemployment what does the government do about it you know what's the policy when these two things stagflation seem to be going on and the Keynesian didn't seem to have an answer at that time in what they could promise was full employment but only at the cost of rising inflation and Milton Friedman broke through really he said inflation is a monetary phenomenon you can control it by controlling the money supply later that that varied but that was the the basic core message and what about unemployment well the problem there is that unions are pricing their members out of work so if you weaken the unions then of course you actually get very rapid lead back to your natural rate of unemployment so it was a policy for the Thatcher government now the risk was the risk was that the electorate wouldn't bear the rise temporary rise in unemployment and that was a risk and they were conscious of taking that risk but they thought that you know all the alternatives were worse that Britain had was becoming unguardable and so they took it well I mean so even when you're talking about the Battle of ideas and which particular shirt is being pulled out of the cupboard at any particular time you do have reference to a problems in the real world it's not just taking place in the mind of economies because if it's only taking place in the mind of economists you have a problem to explain why some ideas come out better than others at different time it's not a matter of truth there's no truth in this these are these are these are all intimately intertwined with politics so that's one set of that's one set of ways you can start thinking about the relationship and the other the other is arm the other the other change is brings in Marx I think Marx is due for a big revival I don't think he was right in his solutions but he was a fantastically perceptive analyst of the capitalist system and particularly the role of power in that system as soon as you bring in low Patra low batteries oh dear dismissed Oh now as soon as you as soon as you bring in the trade unions as part or all the or the elimination or weakening of the trade unions as part of the conquest of inflation you get a Marxist analysis it follows very very readily and because what people were arguing at the time was that full employment guaranteed full employment had actually caused the share of wages in the national income to rise at the expense of profits therefore how do you restore the profit share you actually recreate the reserve army of the unemployed and globalize and of course legal restraints on the position of the unions are part of that now what's wrong with that explanation I mean I think it's the correct explanation you may say the data doesn't well if you can do data on profit shares and wages shares but that was a very very large perception and said I think this is a way of looking at globalization both of Thatcherism and of the globalization file as a project to restore the profit rate it's only it seems to me that that's the simplest way of analyzing the the reason these a certain set of ideas became powerful in the 1970s 1980s and 1990s um I I never you know I never thought I would ever really say things in praise of Marx but I do think this latest crisis and thinking about it have led me to that conclusion now I think there are other things the third you know there's technology where do you fit in technology you get structures of change in the economy that then seem to be guided either by ideas or power structures but I'm and oh this is it the world of shrimp Peter I'm resistant to the idea the technology is an exogenous force I think human beings create technology and we get the technology we want it's obviously must be true at some abstract level technology doesn't create itself machines then create themselves it's human beings who do so where does that leave us where does that leave us today what are the prospects of a change in our ideas as a result of what's happened in the last five or six years well near liberalism as theory has been heavily damaged by vents which according to the near libris near liberal theorists shouldn't have happened these events were not in the script they weren't written into the DNA of the shirts that were hanging in the neoliberal cupboard you know I'm sorry my metaphors own accurate but anyway I say you you have to start questioning then what what really what really what did they miss out and um I think you know mark um you know on the question of financial liberalisation you've recommended it but I recommend the the report 2009 report of the Financial Services Authority which actually does detail the ways in which financial deregulation contributed to the crisis written with a foreword by the chairman of the Financial Services Authority financial efficient market theory suggested very light touch regulation of the banking system because it suggested that broadly speaking they always correctly valued the risks they were running and that was also something Alan Greenspan said after after the event he said we just we just thought that these risks were being correctly priced by by the banks yeah well there's a theory behind that it's not it's not and ended when it was where that theory was reflected in the in the deregulation so um there was a bit of a revival of Keynesianism in 2008-2009 but it soon faded away so what we're left with near liberal structure in economics is very very strong it is all its mainstream the attacks on it have been fringe and and it's hardwired into into the into the brains of all economists that is efficient mark its mark it's mark it's a good state state is bad and you know they're exceptions and so but that is hardwired and it's very hard to break and I don't know I don't know short of abolishing it in our mix and starting again you're ever going to do but still I'm you know you can make some progress and and the second thing is that the structure of the economy is the same the structure of power hasn't changed so therefore where is where is the new movement to come from I'm not saying that it's got to be a revival of Keynesianism I'm not saying that we can have socialism in sold form but I am claiming that neoliberalism has been a very very powerful influence as what's happened and it's still the it's still the ideology in power and I think that's what all of you who young have to think how are we going to sort of you know develop from this situation we're now in right thanks Robert I'm tempted to say welcome to London school of political science as we drop economics I'm going to ask Daniel to behave like the Duracell bunny and respond for two or three minutes because we do want to open it up to question and answers then is going to be a book signing later on and I'll advertise the format of that later Daniel thank you sir I I will just respond to a couple of points mark made I think Roberts just Abele articulated the enduring influence of neoliberal thinking and I think the idea that it's faith-based history is only true if you're one of you know taking a particular perspective to the politics of it because it's quite clear that neoliberalism has a triumph in every area where who's spent thank God but it has had significant make significant inroads into political culture into policies particularly actually around trade unions as Robert mentioned or in the privatization as well as the question about how much or how little financial deregulation there has been and like such regulation was a feature of governments of both left and conservative persuasions on both sides of the Atlantic from the late 70s to the 2008 crisis and the responses to the 2008 crisis are still pending to a large degree by the type of mentality that again Robert just mentioned so it may be the mark wants there to have been more neoliberal influence but I think we can probably agree that as being some and a significant amount enough that it justifies the emphasis that is given of course I accept we disagree politically about the complete of that of what one could draw from that influence and on the question of morality I think it's absolutely agree with the math of course Hayek dealt with morality in his later works and he dealt with morality more or less the time that he would drew from the economics debates that he was involved in earlier on in his career so I apologize if there's a sort of confusion yes but I absolutely accept that I ever did feels that with morality it's just that those aspects of this thought were of course less important to the economic and political breakthroughs that were made in the sixties and seventies on the back of some of his earlier and as it is economic why did they in terms of factor I think absolutely the case was made for Victorian values as well as other type of morality of individual initiative and self-starting almost and that was made at the same time as an argument for market or increased privatization geniune reform and all of the other things that we as a state of Thatcherism the compatibility of those two dimensions of Thatcherism is a totally separate question and i wouldn't say that the argument was made from a market perspective about morality was just that there was a competing concern that were of the greatest daughter for a very Victorian morality that she wanted to safeguard and promote and of course a lot of the market-based policies that she promotes and proceeded what capital ran in my view ran counter to that other goal of a particular kind of morality I just on the financial deregulation point I mean I think it's on is undoubtedly true but there was financial deregulation perhaps again not as much as Mark might have wanted but there was certainly a lot and it wasn't just glass-steagall in Britain it was obviously pursued and continued under Brown so I think I'll leave let's try to have some questions yes thanks Daniel for keeping it concise I think this will try and do now is I think what question we'll take questions one-by-one because I imagine that you want all three people to respond we'll probably have time for four or five you can keep your questions concise and then the respondents also they could be concise take that gentleman there with a large hand up microphone will come to you for a normal-sized hand even say who you are and ask you a question I'm remain member of the public if we consider monetarism as one of the main pillars of new liberal economic policy we know that Hayek was against monetarism then how we can consider Hayek as a new liberal did you want four more questions or do you want two more mistake and took a bunch two or three right at the front here just wait Tim until the mic comes to you not that I know who you are I'm Tim I'm a proud graduate of the London School of Economics and my question was about the LSE why was the LSE so central in this story but we're just lucky that Robbins invited I'm now here Robin's invited hyukoh and Hayek invited plopper or was it something special and could we looks universities to continue to do that going forward or is it that we'll all about think tanks like the Mont Pelerin society you mention that's one from upstairs of first one right at the back there's gentleman hi I'm from the US I come from political background in the British Parliament after having done an internship there my question for you is how do we get politicians whether in the UK or on members European Parliament in order to use more than just rhetoric and create basically a shared motivation to fix these problems through actions rather than just through words Thank You Daniel we'll take another round in a moment Daniel I mean on the European point I think that there's an opportunity out there for someone whether it be the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats perhaps and to articulate a European reform agenda rather than a sort of silence that hopes to capitalize on the Euroskeptic problems of the Tory Party in terms of how that debate will emerge it's very difficult to see at the moment but I hate someone will take some leadership on it and in terms of the LSE is important I think it was just crucial in that that moment in the 1930s there were there was Lionel Robbins but there was also Edwin cannon and a few others at the time and it became a Leykis of Hayekian or not I mean Hayek was there obviously and he became identified the particular position contre Keynes obviously he was based in Cambridge so that institutional dynamic was important then whether it's think tanks now I mean it's certainly has been think-tanks at various points and think tanks emerged really in the 20th century is very important and and but I mean you know I don't know if it's one or the other it could be can be both monitor is a Hayek of course there's a big differences as I'm sure mark could tell you more about the night than I could between an Austrian type approach and a Chicago type approach but I think in pill it in the terms of political breakthroughs the similarities outweigh the differences in terms of how the politician put it in terms of how politicians took on the ideas in the 70s but I think Friedman was crucial in terms of monitors and rather than Hayek Pyatt was very important as a policy activist actually and in sort of binding together a lot of the think tanks and the various neoliberal or classical liberal organizations on both sides of the Atlantic so he was crucial from a more sort of background position whereas Friedman was important for monetarist policy particularly and just to answer the point I think that Robert and Mark both made earlier I think it's very interesting to see how these imperfect applications of economic theories emerge in political context that is it's obviously true that they are not perfect applications of particular economic theories and that they come later and that was high at some point in his intellectuals and socialism article in the late forties so Mark Tremonti yeah just quickly on the monitors in point I think that's a very good point Hayek was no monetarist at least not in the sense of the looting in central monetary targeting the way that Milton Friedman did so I think that's an excellent point and it shows the need for actually having some recognition of the nuance in these areas between different thinkers are not just translating a kind of amorphous set of ideas and claiming politicians and adopted them I'm not saying Daniel he's doing that as such but I think there needs to be more of that neurons in this kind of argument and I'd make that point also to to Robert you know he he makes the point that the efficient markets thesis underlies neoliberalism or free market you it doesn't higher than higher what you did actually you did actually say that I said you did I meant I said very clearly the lied financial deregulation hmm but okay so four key actor okay well if that's what you said if that's what you said if we're talking about the people of the subjects of Daniels book you don't find anywhere in Hayek's writings any claim that's remotely claims that markets are efficient but along perfectly efficient the whole point about the Hayekian worldview is that inefficiency is inevitable in a world where the human mind is limited where people are highly imperfect and all we can do is have institutions that muddle through that doesn't sound anything like a theory of perfect efficiency so again before we start saying what the influence of these ideas is being in political terms we've actually got to locate properly where those ideas are coming from to give another example of that just three or four days ago James Buchanan he was the founder public choice theory that died at the age of 93 now he's largely responsible for developing the theory of government failure as a counter to mainstream neoclassical theories of market failure but if you look at any mainstream a textbook that you get on on economic theory that university students will look at Buchanan is almost completely ignored you might get half a paragraph here and they're mentioning that there is government failure as well as market failure but the emphasis of most mainstream neoclassical economic theory is very much on market failure analysis a large Asif Stiglitz and not on government failure analysis as in James Buchanan let yep let me give you a little anecdote from the horse's mouth I named Joe Stiglitz quite well and I was having dinner with him about a year ago and I said look all these events must have indicated you you know very much he teaches at Columbia University and you mean there must have been vindicated you and you must get crowds of students and he said I'm not allowed to teach students all you know they don't they don't channel students to my courses and so I feel very isolated and I think I think you've got to sort of them take that into account I mean here's a Nobel Prize winner and and and the professors at in his faculty are actually deterring students from taking his courses on the grounds that he is too radical now to answer the questions of course monetarism yeah monetarism and monetarism isn't Hayek isn't sure that they come together actually on the idea that the state needs to be shrunk and so they can form it that they can form an alliance on that and so that there's a - of the streams that feed into neoliberalism why was the LSE so favored with with them in economic thought well you you could say it was favored with it but there was one interpretation Lionel Robbins actually he he said you know opposing Keynes in the 1930s was the greatest mr. intellectual mistake of my life yeah okay and then as to as to you know having actions are rather than rhetoric I completely agree you've just what one's got to think one's got to think this thing through these are very very complex issues I'll recommend to our new director that we could hire Joe Stiglitz if he's unhappy at Columbia well I think we got time for three more questions or I'll suspect there's many more we'll start at the top there's somebody here and your cat quick member the public did deregulation in 1986 to permit retail banks to join the supply finance to investment banks have any impact on the credit crunch quick go down here and there nothing book yes Olivia from King's College I've got two quick comments for mark especially one yes you're right to point out that deregulation is is is not what's happened in the 80s and ITC it would be more correct to call it regulatory reform but then once you make that slight change change in term you say okay it's a bit sophistic to say well there is excessive regulation as led to the crisis because there were a lot of frigerator reforms actually implementing neoliberal agenda so it's not because it's regulation that means that you know there is more state or there is more active role for state and state authorities and the second related comment has to do with I think you also write mark to point out that it's misleading to assume that neoliberal narrable politics lead to lower or weaker states are the with role of the state if you look at you know Reagan years and Bush's the role of the state has actually increased but then it would be misleading to take that as the proof that neoliberal reforms are not very widespread because the kind of state policies that you have in place are very peculiar and you know you could actually explain that paradox you know a bigger role for the state in times of neoliberal politics in two ways you can say okay that's the Palani ultimate we say you know there is more state because of the crisis that neoliberal politics brings in and there is a higher social demand for action and the other thing would be you know there is most it simply because neoliberal politics are controlling that there is a big contradiction there you know and markets are not self-sustaining thank you I guess this gentleman right out he's probably will have to be our last question I know there are other people that would like to ask questions professor Gaddafi and suggest to students here that they attempt to find a way between neoliberal politics and perhaps the old socialism could he give some suggestions to the students here there aren't many political philosophers amongst poly means I can't see the question it is up there I think if you can give some guidance to students about steering a course between neoliberalism and I missed the end of it I thought it was socialist known as I guess as three questions for you gentlemen who wants to my own I forgot I forgot the last one actually because we will I think is offering advice to students about story of course between neoliberalism and socialism okay okay the first question was about did deregulation lead to changing the structure of banks and if that caused the financial crisis is there any evidence for that I don't think there is any convincing evidence for that actually I really don't I mean it's touted very much in the media it's a kind of business commentators view but if you're actually looking for detailed analyses of the way the financial crisis unfolded there are many more convincing explanations than the one that you've you've hinted that in that particular question so my view is that at the very least you have to say that the jury is out on that question on the role of the state I absolutely accept one argument could be that you get a rise in the need say for social expenditures when you have so-called neoliberal policies introduced I can see that as a coherent argument I'm not sure it's a necessary implication of that but I can see that as a coherent argument if we're talking about regulation though the point I was simply making is that people talk an awful lot that deregulation has happened but if you look at the empirical evidence it is not obvious that that is the case and it's also not obvious that the regulator reforms which have taken place have been inspired by neoliberal ideas certainly if you look at the regulatory reforms which are taking place now they are anything but neoliberal and I would suggest that even reforms like the 1986 Big Bang in the UK were not inspired by neoliberal ideas either you have to look at what people in regulatory agencies what universities have they been to what textbooks have they been reading and an awful lot of them haven't been reading in my view hire Kim Buchanan they've been reading mainstream neoclassical market failure theory which says that these markets have got to be regulated heavily because of asymmetric information problems and whole catalogue of other market failures that you'll get documented in any mainstream econ textbook if you're talking about final question about is there a middle way in these debates I'm not unsympathetic you might be surprised to learn given what I've said so far I'm not unsympathetic to middle way thinking my own view isn't this goes back to the previous question that I try to answer that even though philosophically I'm not totally comfortable with it I would like to see as a middle way option the idea of income redistribution to deal with problems of poverty combined with an open market economy which emphasizes the kind of things that the neoliberal z-- talk about philosophically I'm not personally convinced by that argument but it seems to me it's a reasonable sort of compromise instead of thinking you can come up with some kind of compromise between central planning and a market system yeah I only really want to answer one of them if you if you of course if you if you privatize a whole lot of our public utilities that were once under under under state control you increase regulation cause you did because you have to then take account of the way such utilities with heavily concentrated ownership would operate in a market system and of course you run into problems and monopoly oligopoly very very quickly say you increase regulation so paradoxically acts of privatization which on one hand shrink the state also increase the role of regulation and so I think that that process is going on the whole time but it's the it's the idea behind it which is eventually to get the state out of things which which is the dominant one and you know I think you're much too keen on or not too keen I see you're not keen enough on taking cont the climate of ideas I mean you know it's not the Thatcher studied land-use and town planning in great detail like you did there she she she had a general ideas of no the money don't buck the markets get the state out of things some moral values and it's at that level in in in in the in the climate of ideas that that I think these things happen and stuff I will answer well the steering course between neoliberalism and socialism no I don't think I didn't think I didn't think the Third Way is right I mean this was Tony Blair's great idea because the trouble was that one bit of the third way the second way was no longer there so you can't have a third way got to have something else Daniel give you the last word um yeah I mean I think on on that's an ass you know why why neoliberalism didn't have more impact it's partly because the tenacity of the universal welfare state and in the health service is something very difficult to challenge because everyone benefits from it and everyone uses it and everyone for the most part has a good experience of it and that is a clear and similarly Universal benefits I mean we do see some of that perhaps being reordered now we'll see see how far it goes in terms of the financial crisis I do think it probably D fall down on the on the market failure rather than government failure side of the fence but again you know there are competing explanations and planets and it's quite early to know the definitive answer and I'm sure that there were government failures and a failure of regulation is by definition and government failure as well so and then finally I think in terms of the theme that we've been thinking about about the way in which ideas matter and how they translate into politics I mean it's very interesting I think that in the example of the post-war German economy you do get litva Gerhardt actually being someone who was thinking some of these ideas at that time and was a member of the Mont Pelerin Society and then he introduced his currency reform and he introduces helps to create the social market economy in the 50s so there you've got a sort of a more direct route from put from my desert politics thank you and thanks everybody for coming out tonight just before you file out if I could just very quickly make three points first of all if you would like to buy a copy of Daniels book there outside if you purchase them there and then bring them up afterwards to the table at the front Daniel will be very happy to sign them secondly thanks to LSE events and are stewards I think we do have the best public events program anywhere in the world right now and please to acknowledge the role of LSE events in putting them on but lastly I just invite you all to say thank you in the traditional way to our speakers Daniel arc and Robert

Channel: LSE

Views: 47,309

Rating: 4.5307264 out of 5

Keywords: LSE, London School of Economics, University, College, Public, Lecture, Event, podcast, Seminar, Talk, Speech, Daniel Stedman Jones, Mark Pennington, Lord Skidelsky, Hayek, Friedman, Neoliberal, Politics

Id: ehrjP2_ffPc

Length: 90min 22sec (5422 seconds)

Published: Tue Feb 05 2013