This book has two central aims. The first is to give a fair, comprehensive, and analytical account of the central features of the neo‐liberal view about the role and limits of the state in the modern world. It considers important ideas such as the contrast between a state based on rules and the one based on outcomes, the implications of this contrast for the rule of law, for the ideas of freedom, social justice, and rights. It provides a full account of the neo‐liberal view of the relationship between the state and the economy and to civil society and voluntary organizations. It draws upon a w ... More

This book has two central aims. The first is to give a fair, comprehensive, and analytical account of the central features of the neo‐liberal view about the role and limits of the state in the modern world. It considers important ideas such as the contrast between a state based on rules and the one based on outcomes, the implications of this contrast for the rule of law, for the ideas of freedom, social justice, and rights. It provides a full account of the neo‐liberal view of the relationship between the state and the economy and to civil society and voluntary organizations. It draws upon a wide range of works by neo‐liberal thinkers to build up the theoretical case for this conception of the role of government and politics. The thinkers at the heart of this part of the study are Hayek, Buchanan, Mises, Menger, as well as others who while not regarding themselves as neo‐liberals nevertheless have contributed to neo‐liberal ideas. These include Oakeshott, Nozick, and Rothbard. The study also looks at the public policy implications of neo‐liberal ideas in relation to the role of the welfare state and other forms of public sector provision. The second part of the book provides a detailed critical appraisal of some of the central neo‐liberal doctrines particularly in relation to the core ideas of freedom, justice, rights, the role of collective organizations in civil society, and the provision of welfare. The book argues that contrary to neo‐liberal arguments there is no coherent way of providing a sharp and categorical distinction between neo‐liberalism and Social Democracy on the one hand and libertarianism on the other.