Interrogating ‘authoritarian neoliberalism’: The problem of periodization

Abstract

From the legislated ‘embedding’ of neoliberalism as seen with constitutional debt ceilings, through sweeping free trade agreements, to the direct, violent suppression of political freedoms; democracy today seems to be under siege from all sides. In response to these troubling developments, Ian Bruff (2014) recently introduced the concept of ‘authoritarian neoliberalism’ to understand increasingly undemocratic forms of state and state action in the current conjuncture. This article argues that although ‘authoritarian neoliberalism’ presents a useful development in our understanding of these processes, the concept faces several challenges – in particular, that of obscuring a broader history of authoritarianism and its contradictions, by separating neoliberalism into distinct phases. This article considers two moments of authoritarianism within the history of neoliberalism: the United Kingdom under Margaret Thatcher, and the Greek experience of mandated austerity within the strictures of the European Monetary Union (EMU). Through these examples, the article will engage with claims that the ‘authoritarian neoliberalism’ of the post-2007 context is somehow ‘qualitatively distinct’ from earlier forms. It is argued that an enforced separation between these two cases is unhelpful, and that more fruitful directions for this emerging research agenda lie not in a conceptual separation of the past, but rather a consideration of the durability of authoritarian state forms.