The end of the “neoliberal interlude”?

Since the late 1970s, with Thatcherism, Reaganism and the Washington Consensus , it has been thought that economic efficiency would be increased by the implementation of “neoliberal” economic policies following the work of Friedman and Hayek: competition in goods and services markets, labour market deregulation, free trade, free movement of capital, a reduced role for the state. T his consensus is changing : G oods and services market s are actually becoming increasingly concentrated , and the idea is gaining ground that less competition may be acceptable - at least regionally - in order to enable the form ation of large companies capable of competing in the global market; Labour market deregulation has led to an excessive skewing of income distribution to the detriment of wage earners and to rising inequality and poverty. A consensus is developing that it has gone too far; Free trade has certainly reduced poverty in emerging countries, but, as should have been expected, it has also increased inequality and led to severe deindustrialisation in OECD countries. Ideas are now afoot to curb it (taxation of products from countries with lax social or environmental standards); Free movement of capital allows savings to be allocated to the most efficient projects regardless of their location. But it has also led to high variability in capital flows and exchange rates, in particular in emerging countries, destabilis ing economies. It is now no longer taboo to mention the benefits of controls on some capital flows; It is increasingly recognised that the state has a role to play in fostering innovation and the development of industries of the future. But is “the end of neoliberalism” optimal?