Menu Expand

The “New” Crisis of the Liberal Order: Populism, Socioeconomic Imbalances, and the Response of Contemporary Ordoliberalism

  1. Journals
  2. Economics, Finance, Business & Management
  3. Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch
  4. Vol. 139, Issue 2–4
  5. pp. 243–258

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
Dold, M., Krieger, T. The “New” Crisis of the Liberal Order: Populism, Socioeconomic Imbalances, and the Response of Contemporary Ordoliberalism. Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, 139(2–4), 243-258. https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.139.2-4.243
Dold, Malte and Krieger, Tim "The “New” Crisis of the Liberal Order: Populism, Socioeconomic Imbalances, and the Response of Contemporary Ordoliberalism" Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch 139.2–4, 2019, 243-258. https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.139.2-4.243
Dold, Malte/Krieger, Tim (2019): The “New” Crisis of the Liberal Order: Populism, Socioeconomic Imbalances, and the Response of Contemporary Ordoliberalism, in: Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, vol. 139, iss. 2–4, 243-258, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.139.2-4.243
Format
Download

The “New” Crisis of the Liberal Order: Populism, Socioeconomic Imbalances, and the Response of Contemporary Ordoliberalism

Dold, Malte | Krieger, Tim

Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, Vol. 139 (2019), Iss. 2–4 : pp. 243–258

10 Citations (CrossRef)

Read Now Download (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.139.2-4.243
Language
English
Pages
16
Keywords

Author Details

Dold, Malte, Economics Department, Pomona College, 425 N. College Way, Claremont, CA 91711, USA.

Krieger, Tim, Faculty of Economics and Behavioral Sciences, University of Freiburg, Wilhelmstraße 1b, 79085 Freiburg, Germany.

Cited By

  1. Taming Giants: How Ordoliberal Competition Theory Can Address Power in the Digital Age

    Küsters, Anselm | Oakes, Isabel

    Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, Vol. 141 (2021), Iss. 3 P.149

    https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.141.3.149 [Citations: 1]

  2. Ordoliberalism goes China? A comparison of recent developments in EU and chinese competition law considering the digital economy

    Küsters, Anselm

    Constitutional Political Economy, Vol. (2023), Iss.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-023-09407-y [Citations: 0]

  3. Vermögensbildungspolitik

    Der Liberalismus braucht ein Update

    Krieger, Tim

    2021

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34057-5_5 [Citations: 0]

  4. In the maelstrom of crises: The European Union and the ‘Zeitenwende’

    Gabrisch, Hubert

    Economic Annals, Vol. 68 (2023), Iss. 236 P.7

    https://doi.org/10.2298/EKA2336007G [Citations: 0]

  5. Ordoliberalism in The Epoch of Pandemy

    Losoncz, Alpár

    Belvedere Meridionale, Vol. 33 (2021), Iss. 3 P.57

    https://doi.org/10.14232/belv.2021.3.3 [Citations: 0]

  6. The ideological use and abuse of Freiburg’s ordoliberalism

    Dold, Malte | Krieger, Tim

    Public Choice, Vol. 195 (2023), Iss. 3-4 P.341

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-021-00875-0 [Citations: 6]

  7. Vermögensbildungspolitik

    Der Liberalismus braucht ein Update

    Krieger, Tim

    2024

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-44748-9_4 [Citations: 0]

  8. The renaissance of ordoliberalism in the 1970s and 1980s*

    Krieger, Tim | Nientiedt, Daniel

    Constitutional Political Economy, Vol. (2023), Iss.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-023-09411-2 [Citations: 0]

  9. Stability of the liberal order, moral learning, and constitutional choice: an unresolved tension in James Buchanan’s political economy

    Dold, Malte F. | Petersen, Matías

    Review of Social Economy, Vol. 81 (2023), Iss. 4 P.672

    https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2021.1957141 [Citations: 2]

  10. Walter Lippmann: an institutionalist for our times?

    Hargreaves Heap, Shaun P. | Lewis, Paul

    Journal of Institutional Economics, Vol. 20 (2024), Iss.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137424000298 [Citations: 0]

References

  1. Algan, Y., S. Guriev, E. Papaioannou, and E. Passari. 2017. “The European Trust Crisis and the Rise of Populism.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2017 (2): 309 – 400.  Google Scholar
  2. Anomaly J., G. Brennan, M. C. Munger, and G. Sayre-McCord. 2016. Philosophy, Politics, and Economics: An Anthology. New York: Oxford University Press.  Google Scholar
  3. Arnorsson, A., G. Zoega. 2018. “On the Causes of Brexit.” European Journal of Political Economy 55: 301 – 23.  Google Scholar
  4. Autor, D., D. Dorn, L. F. Katz, C. Patterson, and J. Van Reenen. 2017. “The Fall of the Labor Share and the Rise of Superstar Firms.” NBER Working Paper Series No. 23396.  Google Scholar
  5. Baron, D. 2018. “Who Identifies with the AfD? Explorative Analyses in Longitudinal Perspective.” SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research No. 983.  Google Scholar
  6. Böhm, F. 1960. Reden und Schriften. Karlsruhe: C. F. Müller.  Google Scholar
  7. Braunberger, G. 2016. “Ordnungsökonomik ist nicht genug. Unsystematische Betrachtungen eines Wirtschaftsjournalisten.” In Neue Ordnungsökonomik, edited by J. Zweynert, S. Kolev, and N. Goldschmidt, 225 – 37. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.  Google Scholar
  8. Buchanan, J. M. 1959. “Positive Economics, Welfare Economics, and Political Economy.” Journal of Law and Economics 2: 124 – 38.  Google Scholar
  9. Collier, P. 2018. The Future of Capitalism: Facing the New Anxieties. London: Penguin.  Google Scholar
  10. Dao, M. C., M. M. Das, Z. Koczan, and W. Lian. 2017. Why is Labor Receiving a Smaller Share of Global Income? Theory and Empirical Evidence. Washington: International Monetary Fund.  Google Scholar
  11. De Mesquita, E. B. 2016. Political Economy for Public Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.  Google Scholar
  12. Dekker, E., & S. Kolev. 2019. “A View from Europe: Austrian Economics, Civil Society, and PPE.” Advances in Austrian Economics 24: 67 – 77.  Google Scholar
  13. Dold, M. and T. Krieger, eds. 2019. Ordoliberalism and European Economic Policy: Between Realpolitik and Economic Utopia. Abingdon: Routledge.  Google Scholar
  14. Dold, M. and T. Krieger. 2017a. “Competition or Conflict? Beyond Traditional Ordo-Liberalism.” In Ordoliberalism, Law and the Rule of Economics, edited by C. Joerges and J. Hien, 245 – 60. Oxford: Hart Publishing.  Google Scholar
  15. Dold, M. and T. Krieger. 2017b. “Ordoliberalism Is Not Responsible for Jihadist Terrorism in Europe: A Reply to Van der Walt.” New Perspectives 25 (2): 105 – 15.  Google Scholar
  16. Erhard, L. 1957. Wohlstand für alle. Düsseldorf: Econ Verlag.  Google Scholar
  17. EU Council. 2000. “Schlussfolgerungen des Europäischen Rates Lissabon.” March 23 and 24, 2000.  Google Scholar
  18. Eucken, W. 2004 [1952]. Grundsätze der Wirtschaftspolitik. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.  Google Scholar
  19. Fuest, C. 2018. “The Third Type of Inter-System Competition: Europe and the Rise of China.” ifo Viewpoint No. 200.  Google Scholar
  20. Fukuyama, F. 1989. “The End of History?” The National Interest 16: 3 – 18.  Google Scholar
  21. Gaus, G., C. Favor, and J. Lamont. 2010. Essays on Philosophy, Politics, and Economics: Integration and Common Research Projects. Stanford: Stanford University Press.  Google Scholar
  22. Gidron, N. and P. A. Hall. 2017. “The Politics of Social Status: Economic and Cultural Roots of the Populist Right.” British Journal of Sociology 68 (S1): S57–S84.  Google Scholar
  23. Goldin, C. D. and L. F. Katz. 2009. The Race between Education and Technology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.  Google Scholar
  24. Guiso, L., H. Herrera, M. Morelli, and T. Sonno. 2017. “Demand and Supply of Populism.” Centre for Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper No. DP11871.  Google Scholar
  25. Hausman, D., M. McPherson, and D. Satz. 2016. Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy, and Public Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  26. Inglehart, R. and P. Norris. 2017. “Trump and the Populist Authoritarian Parties: The Silent Revolution in Reverse.” Perspectives on Politics 15 (2): 443 – 54.  Google Scholar
  27. Jackson, B. 2012. “Freedom, the Common Good, and the Rule of Law: Lippmann and Hayek on Economic Planning.” Journal of the History of Ideas 73 (1): 47 – 68.  Google Scholar
  28. Jansen, S. C. 2009. “Phantom Conflict: Lippmann, Dewey, and the Fate of the Public in Modern Society.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 6 (3): 221 – 45.  Google Scholar
  29. Kahler, M. and D. A. Lake. 2003. “Globalization and Governance.” In Governance in a Global Economy, edited by M. Kahler and D. Lake, 1 – 30. Princeton: Princeton University Press.  Google Scholar
  30. Knight, F. H. 1938. “Lippmann’s The Good Society.” Journal of Political Economy 46 (6): 864 – 72.  Google Scholar
  31. Kolev, S. 2019. “Ordoliberalism’s Embeddedness in the Neoliberalisms of the 1930s and 1940s.” In Ordoliberalism and European Economic Policy: Between Realpolitik and Economic Utopia, edited by M. Dold and T. Krieger, 23 – 38. Abingdon: Routledge.  Google Scholar
  32. Lippmann, W. 1937. The Good Society. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.  Google Scholar
  33. Martins, J. O., R. Boarini, H. Strauss, and C. De La Maisonneuve. 2010. “The Policy Determinants of Investment in Tertiary Education.” OECD Journal: Economic Studies 2009 (1): 1 – 37.  Google Scholar
  34. Mudde, C. and C. R. Kaltwasser. 2017. Populism: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.  Google Scholar
  35. Munger, M. C. and M. Villarreal-Diaz. 2019. “The Road to Crony Capitalism.” Independent Review 23 (3): 331 – 44.  Google Scholar
  36. OECD. 2017. Bridging the Gap: Inclusive Growth 2017 Update Report. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/inclusive-growth/Bridging_the_Gap.pdf.  Google Scholar
  37. Organ, J. 2017. “EU Citizen Participation, Openness and the European Citizens Initiative: The TTIP Legacy.” Common Market Law Review 54 (6): 1713 – 47.  Google Scholar
  38. Ostry, M. J. D., M. A. Berg, and M. C. G. Tsangarides. 2014. Redistribution, Inequality, and Growth. Washington: International Monetary Fund.  Google Scholar
  39. Posner, E. A. and E. G. Weyl. 2018. Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.  Google Scholar
  40. Richter, W. F. 2004. “Delaying Integration of Immigrant Labor for the Purpose of Taxation.” Journal of Urban Economics 55: 597 – 613.  Google Scholar
  41. Rodrik, D. 1998. “Why Do More Open Economies Have Bigger Governments?” Journal of Political Economy 106 (5): 997 – 1032.  Google Scholar
  42. Rodrik, D. 2018. “Populism and the Economics of Globalization.” Journal of International Business Policy 1: 12 – 33.  Google Scholar
  43. Sinn, H.-W. 2002. The New Systems Competition. Oxford: Blackwell.  Google Scholar
  44. Stiglitz, J. E. 2012. The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers our Future. New York: W. W. Norton.  Google Scholar
  45. The Economist. 2018. “The Economist at 175: Reinventing Liberalism for the 21st Century.” September 15, 45 – 54.  Google Scholar
  46. Van der Weide, R. and B. Milanovic. 2018. “Inequality is Bad for Growth of the Poor (But Not For That of the Rich).” World Bank Economic Review 32 (3): 507 – 30.  Google Scholar
  47. Vanberg, V. 1997a. “Die normativen Grundlagen von Ordnungspolitik.” ORDO Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 48: 707 – 26.  Google Scholar
  48. Vanberg, V. 1997b. “Subsidiarity, Responsive Government and Individual Liberty.” In Political Institutions and Public Policy, edited by B. Steunenberg and F. Van Vught, 189 – 203. Dordrecht: Springer.  Google Scholar
  49. Venables, A. J. 2018. “Globalization and Urban Polarization.” Review of International Economics 26 (5): 981 – 96.  Google Scholar

Abstract

In the face of the “new” crisis of liberalism, our paper follows the spirit of Walter Lippmann’s The Good Society and argues for a renewal of (ordo)?liberal thinking. Similar to Lippmann, we argue that our current liberal economic order is unfit to deal with fundamental social asymmetries. The benefits of economic integration are distributed unevenly with urban economic and political elites as main beneficiaries and supporters of the current order, while neglecting less-skilled, rural workers. In this paper, we argue for a contemporary ordoliberalism that takes up this distributional challenge. In spite of recurrent criticism of its value-laden nature, we argue that the normativity of ordoliberalism is actually an asset in the current debate on populism.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
The “New” Crisis of the Liberal Order: Populism, Socioeconomic Imbalances, and the Response of Contemporary Ordoliberalism 243
By Malte Dold and Tim Krieger 243
Abstract 243
1. The “New” Crisis of the Liberal Order 243
2. The Liberal Neglect of a Fundamental Societal Asymmetry 245
3. What Can Today’s Liberals Learn from Walter Lippmann? 247
4. A Plea for a Contemporary Ordoliberalism 249
4.1 A Needed Update 250
4.2 Policy Proposals 251
5. Concluding Remarks: The Merits of a PPE Perspective 243
References 243

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2024 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Powered by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.