Neoliberalism often hides in plain sight. Its defenders rarely identify as neoliberals. Philip Mirowski described it as the movement that dared not speak its own name. Its advocates often suggest that it never existed, except as a term of abuse invented by the Left. Branko Milanovic has recently gone further, arguing that neoliberalism is dead. The era of globalization built on cosmopolitanism and international competition has given way to a more protectionist and nationalist world. But the mistake is to identify neoliberalism with globalization or free trade. These were policy instruments, not its defining feature. Its defining characteristic has always been the subordination of democratic politics to market rationality and the institutional insulation of capital from popular demands. Seen in this light, the rise of right-wing populism marks not the end of neoliberalism but one of its latest transformations.

Milanovic is right that the old language of free trade and cosmopolitan integration no longer describes the behavior of the major powers. The United States and Europe now use tariffs, subsidies, sanctions, industrial policy, and geopolitical controls with an openness that would have seemed unusual a few decades ago. The political backlash against deindustrialization, inequality, and financial crisis is real. But it does not follow that neoliberalism has ended. One should be cautious about the significance of the change: the truth is that the West, and especially the United States, never abandoned industrial policy. In practice, state intervention in strategic sectors has been a constant, even if it is often denied at the level of discourse.

It is crucial to distinguish neoliberalism from the slogans with which it has often presented itself. Neoliberalism was not a rediscovery of the old-fashioned laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism. It is also not just a political movement. Its analytical foundation lies in modern neoclassical economics — above all, in the claim that markets are the superior mechanisms for coordinating social life and that government failure is generally more dangerous than market failure.