Neoliberalism in the real world
It’s been awhile. I’ve had a busy few months but occasionally I get to think about things. Here’s one.
I'm in lots of meetings discussing neoliberalism. It's one of those terms that we all assume we know what we're talking about. Maybe?
One simple description someone said went like this: "It's market thinking in every part of life." That works for me.
But it's not just market thinking, it's actual markets and the motivations that drive market actors (i.e. competition, supply and demand, profit motive) in every part of life - including public things. Markets, the true believers say, are superior, natural forces that self-correct so should be allowed to operate without overbearing public command and control rules. In fact, the rules will hurt market’s ability to help us all.
I see it differently. There are market things and there are public things. They are just different. Many say that the basic role of government is to step in when markets fail. I disagree. If they are different things, then public things are just "market inappropriate." Like cooking eggs with a hammer. Just the wrong tool. Ezra Klein summed it up well.
Markets are more efficient, more adaptable, less corrupt. And so governments should, where possible, get out of the market’s way. The government’s proper role is after the market has done its work, shifting money from those who have it to those who need it. Put simply, markets create, governments tax, and politicians spend.
It’s remarkable, the assumptions that lurk beneath what’s taken for common sense in Washington. Consider the phrase “winners and losers.” Winners at what? Losers how? Markets manage such questions through profits and losses, valuations and bankruptcies. But societies have richer, more complex goals. To criticize markets for failing to achieve them is like berating a toaster because it never produces an oil painting. That’s not its job.
And, yes, there's lots of interaction between them. Something isn't a market thing just because it's done by a private (not public) entity.
So let's talk about actual public things where "market thinking" (and markets) is taking over (i.e. education) or already has (i.e. childcare.) And the impacts on those public things when markets exclude, markets extract and markets divide us from each other.
One of our most important public things - that we all do together, that we decided (democratically) everyone needs and that we need everyone to have - public education is under full scale assault by "market true-believers" (a clearer term than neoliberals — it allows us to critique and describe alternatives to anyone we meet on the street.)
Let me explain.
The original idea of charter schools was to allow a school community (i.e. teachers, parents, etc) in few schools to come up with new and creative ways to teach students - laboratories of innovation. New ideas would be shared freely and widely so all students and communities could benefit. Public schools are for all so don't hoard the good ideas, let them flow.
That's changed. Charter schools — publicly funded, privately operated — are now a competitive market thing. Individual charters compete with (with marketing dollars they get from the public) to enroll students and the public funding that comes with each student.
What happens illustrates why the market is the wrong tool to provide quality public education for all.
Teachers in some charter schools are often required to sign non-disclosure agreements and non-compete clauses as a condition of employment that prohibit them from sharing the schools "trade secrets." What are the secrets? “Curriculum systems, instructional programs, curriculum solutions, new materials," says one. A particularly comprehensive one includes "all know-how and show-how whether or not protected by patent, copyright or trade secret law." The very things that should be shared
Market competition also leads some charters to use schemes to keep out new students or push out existing students who are more difficult or more costly to educate what might hurt test scores – and enrollment. Like special education students or ones with behavior issues. One charter school principle kept a “Got to Go” list and came up with ways to get them to leave the school.
Charter school laws also provides ways for wealthy suburbs to carve themselves off from urban districts. (read my book for some of those examples.)
Market true believers say progress happens through "creative destruction" (aka survival of the fittest.) Parents will choose the good schools that will survive and grow and avoid the poor schools until they improve or fail. But when people walk with their tax dollars to other schools, the schools left behind are left with fewer resources. The number of charters is growing fast all across the country. It should be obvious that there is no conceivable school improvement approach that includes taking away their funding. None.
That's neoliberalism at work.
It's worth noting that neoliberalism isn't exactly the same as turning public things completely into private commodities as Milton Friedman articulated earlier this century when he said “In my ideal world, government would not be responsible for providing education any more than it is for providing food and clothing.”
Or is it?
Some music suggestions before I sign off.
I created a playlist of concerts I’ve seen since the pandemic started phasing out. I use Tidal now because they pay artists more, but here’s Tidal list and here’s Spotify version. Send me your playlists.
My friend Alisa Amador won the Tiny Desk Concert. It’s fantastic. Watch it.
Thanks for reading and listening.
Donald