Abstract
The Walter Lippmann Colloquium is placed in its historical and ideational context. The Lippmann Colloquium’s own ideational roots are traced along with the contributions of its participants, the historical backdrop of the Walter Lippmann Colloquium, as well as the heterogeneity of early neo-liberal thought. The chapter analyzes the crisis of the 1930s, the threat of war, and the growing pressure on both economic and political liberalism that confronted the Lippmann Colloquium’s participants. The genesis of neo-liberalism is examined in the framework of current historiographic debates and the existing academic literature.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
Bilger (1964, 153).
- 5.
The anti-Keynesian bent Cockett attributes to the Colloquium has been the subject of recent argument. Some participants—such as Aron and Polanyi —were in fact favorably disposed toward Keynes and sympathetic to some of his economic theories. See: Cockett (1994, 12). For a critique on this point, see Audier (2008).
- 6.
Hartwell (1995).
- 7.
- 8.
Friedrich (1955).
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
Foucault ([1979] 2008).
- 12.
Chevènement (1979).
- 13.
Becker (1976).
- 14.
This refers to a group of Chileans who studied economics under Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago and subsequently returned to Chile, where they would influence economic policy. Many were part of an exchange program between the Catholic University and the University of Chicago .
- 15.
For an empirical analysis of “neo-liberal” policies in the United States , the United Kingdom , France, and Germany , see Prasad (2006).
- 16.
See, for example, Bourdieu (1998).
- 17.
Harvey (2005, 3).
- 18.
Steger and Roy (2010, 11).
- 19.
- 20.
In the context of neo-liberalism’s critics, Thatcher and Schmidt (2013, 422) refer to neo-liberalism’s alleged “ideational ‘slipperiness,’ its broken (and unfulfillable) promises, its ‘sleights of hand’ in debate, the cynical support of powerful interests, and the bias in choices due to its institutional embeddedness” (see also: Amadae 2015; Kotz 2015; Mirowski 2013; Stiglitz 2008).
- 21.
- 22.
Foucault commented that the transcript of the Colloquium “is not easy to find”, having been “strangely lost by the Bibliothèque Nationale”. Foucault advised his students that the text could be obtained at the Musée Social instead (Foucault 1979, 132) .
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
- 26.
- 27.
Flandin (1933).
- 28.
Pirou (1934).
- 29.
- 30.
Audier (2012a, 211–213).
- 31.
Rougier (1961).
- 32.
A further sign of this tragic context is that Lippmann’s book was translated in France by Georges Blumberg , one of the earliest critics of Nazi Germany and its anti-Semitism. Published at the Librarie Médicis publishing house, the book also contained a preface written by the conservative writer André Maurois . See Blumberg (1934, 6–13), Parrain and Blumberg (1933, 234–262).
- 33.
Rougier knew that their political and philosophical dispositions often differed markedly.
- 34.
- 35.
Letter sent by Louis Rougier to, among other, Luigi Einaudi, July 12, 1938, held in the Archivio Storico Fonfazione Luigi Einaudi , dossier Rougier . In another of his invitation letters, this time hand-written, to the liberal economist and anti-fascist Italian Luigi Einaudi , the philosopher reports more precisely on his research and requests: “I know many of your friends and that is what leads me to ask you to attend the Lippmann Colloquium, at the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation , from August 26th to August 30th, in Paris . From London Condliffe, Plant, Hayek and Robbins will come; from Geneva, Mises and Röpke. I hope to have Ricci and Bresciani-Turroni if I can find out his address in Berlin” (Rougier 1938b).
- 36.
Anon. 1938 (Le Temps).
- 37.
Ibid.
- 38.
Brief biographies of each participant are provided in the next chapter. These categories overlap, of course—Rueff was not just an economist but also a civil servant, for example—but they are broadly useful.
- 39.
Hayek ([1937] 1971).
- 40.
Robbins (1937, 1–10).
- 41.
Robbins (1937, 225–228).
- 42.
Robbins (1937, 225–226, fn 1, 231).
- 43.
The President of the Council of Ministers (Presidente del Consiglio).
- 44.
On the importance of Ortega y Gasset and Francesco Saverio Nitti in the reinvention of liberalism in the 1930s, see Visone (2015).
- 45.
Hayek (1939 [1948]).
- 46.
Lippmann ([1937] 2005, 185).
- 47.
Steel (1980).
- 48.
- 49.
Published in 1938, this book was based on lectures delivered at the Institut des Hautes Etudes Internationales in Geneva (Rougier 1938a).
- 50.
- 51.
- 52.
Rougier (1939).
- 53.
Jackson (2010, 134).
- 54.
The critique of ordo-liberalism as authoritarian liberalism close to the ideas of Carl Schmitt and reactionary thought has been developed in Ptak (2004), Butterwegge et al. (2008). To the contrary, the argument that ordo-liberalism was fundamentally an anti-Nazi movement has been developed by Bilger (1964). Ptak’s ideas have been assessed by supporters of ordo-liberalism : see Goldschmidt and Wohlgemuth (2008a, 5).
- 55.
Audier (2016).
- 56.
Those who support laissez-faire liberalism, such as Gustave de Molinari and Herbert Spencer in the nineteenth century, considered the absence of State intervention in the economy to be salutary. A number of thinkers in the nineteenth century also embraced a Darwinian worldview.
- 57.
Lippmann (1937, 185).
- 58.
Denord (2009, 49) lists Baudin as a supporter of “traditional” economic liberalism, but the transcript of the Colloquium and Baudin’s writings on corporative economics reveals considerable ambiguity in this regard, and we do not include him in this group.
- 59.
This was not without controversy: von Mises cautioned that re-naming liberalism might be interpreted as a concession to totalitarian pressures.
- 60.
At a time where socialists seeking to revise their doctrine, as Marjolin had done, had called for a “constructive revolution ” (“ révolution constructive”).
- 61.
- 62.
In spite of profound differences with regard to socialism and liberalism, the Polany brothers shared a sense of the extreme seriousness of the crisis of capitalism in the 1930s.
- 63.
In Mises’ view, what he referred to as the “anti-capitalistic” mentality was due to socialist and interventionist lies, not to intrinsic defects of capitalism .
- 64.
Goldschmidt and Wohlgemuth (2008b) provide an overview of the foundational texts of the Freiburg school’s theorists.
- 65.
Rüstow , Alexander and Röpke, Wilhelm: “A note on the urgent necessity of the re-orientation of social science ”. This paper was circulated among a select group and was not published.
- 66.
The term Vermassung can be inadequately translated as “massification” or “depersonalization”. It refers to a society of massive scales, massive corporations, massive cities, and a massive State, where any reasonable “human” dimension is lost.
- 67.
In texts such as Liberalismus, Mises rejected the romantic critiques of industrial modernity, whereas Rüstow and Röpke were far more receptive to such critiques.
- 68.
Many Frenchmen at the Colloquium—from Detoeuf to Marlio —were trained as technocratic engineers or industrialists that entailed a distance from the conservative and romantic critique of the two Germans. The only real French sociologist who attended the Colloquium, Aron , was far from the conservative sociology of Le Play that Röpke admired. Aron defended “industrial society”, albeit with some nuances, but without the concerns of Röpke and Rüstow .
- 69.
The term “strong state” here refers not to a “large” State in terms of quantitative volume, but instead to a State possessing the capacity to take necessary action, in a decisive manner, to maintain order. In 1932 already, Rüstow had embraced—like the jurist Carl Schmitt and others—the term pluralism to describe “the role of the State as a suitable prey” (Rüstow [1932] 1982, 186). The term “pluralism ” was at the core of discussions about the model of the Weimar Republic (see Kennedy 2004, 119–152) .
- 70.
One has sometimes reproached this critique of “pluralism ” and this apology of a “strong state” of Carl Schmitt’s conception—Schmitt was cited by both Eucken and Rüstow during the crisis of the Weimar Republic—but Rüstow was always a defender of liberalism who rejected National Socialism . Röpke supported a decentralized State, and one of the authors he admired the most, Johan Huizinga, was one of the earliest critics of Schmitt’s legal and political vision. See Huizinga (1935).
- 71.
On the constitutional, legal , and economic crises of the Weimar Republic and their conceptual implications (see Kennedy 2004, 119–153).
- 72.
The critical comment pertained to Rueff’s analysis of English mass unemployment .
- 73.
Even if the ideas of the first Chicago School, those expounded by Henry Calvert Simons in A Positive Program for Laissez Faire (1934), corresponded to some extent to those of Lippmann and to those of the German ordo-liberals.
- 74.
Friedman (1951).
- 75.
The CIERL was an unusual, if short-lived organization. In his opening lecture, Marlio said he was proud of having chosen the reformist anchor of the “Musée social” to defend his “social liberalism” , concerned with the suffering of the masses . During the ephemeral period of its existence, the CIERL sought to include trade unionists and socialists—particularly anti-communist ones—all while maintaining a liberal agenda, defended by Jacques Rueff among others. At the same time, the CIERL already constituted a network of “neo-liberals,” with international correspondents such as Röpke and Hayek.
- 76.
In 1984, while visiting Paris , Hayek acknowledged in retrospect the importance of the Lippmann Colloquium in seeing in it an organizational anticipation of the Mont Pelerin Society . However, in his previous contributions spanning decades, Hayek’s references to the key role of the Lippmann Colloquium were rare, as though he favored viewing Mont Pelerin as the real birthplace of liberalism rightly understood. In his speech in Paris in 1984, Hayek did not celebrate “neo-liberalism ” but rather “classical liberalism”. See the lecture delivered by Hayek in 1984 in Paris (Hayek 1984, 18). In the third volume of Law, Legislation and LibertyHayek criticized “those ‘neo-liberals’” for their systematic opposition to “enterprise monopoly”. And at a January 23, 1978 conference of the Aktionsgemeinschaft Soziale Markwirtschaft, while stating his closeness to the Freiburg School, Hayek emphasized the errors of neo-liberals with regard to the question of monopolies. At the conference, Hayek also emphasized that the renovation of liberalism should take place in the framework of classical liberalism, and that this should not be hidden behind the figleaf of “neo-liberalism”. Nonetheless, in the 1950s, Hayek did refer positively to “neo-liberalism,” but in the context of the Germans, even referring positively to a “new liberalism” (“neue Liberalismus”) in the context of the works of Lippmann, Rougier, Eucken and himself (Hayek 1959, 591–596). In the same German volume, Mises even referred, exceptionally, to “a real neo-liberal movement” (“Eine wirklich neuliberale Bewegung”, Mises 1959, 596–603). But these occurrences are rare.
- 77.
- 78.
- 79.
See Lavergne (1957).
- 80.
Gregg (2010, 156).
- 81.
See Canihac (2017).
- 82.
Dixon (1998) defends the thesis that the Lippmann Colloquium was a key moment for anti-Keynesianism.
- 83.
- 84.
Moreover, as noted, the CIERL , in the wake of the Lippmann Colloquium had invited representatives of trade unions and socialists, in order to convince men of the left , which would not be the case for the Mont Pèlerin Society . The “social liberalism” of Marlio and Rueff’s “left liberalism”, beyond their differences, were liberalisms that sought the support of wage earners and the working masses .
- 85.
- 86.
We would like to suggest, however, that there exist descendants more or less faithful to the spirit of the Walter Lippmann Colloquium , and which are to be found mainly in Germany and in France. In Germany , the “social market economy ”, in particular its theorization by Alfred Müller-Armack between the end of World War II and the 1960s corresponds quite well to the ambition of the Colloquium. Like the ordo-liberals, Müller -Armack wanted to promote a competitive order that would neutralize private powers and produce “prosperity for all”, per the phrase of the Minister of Economics (later Chancellor) Ludwig Erhard.
But Müller-Armack thought also that the “social market economy ”, all the while respecting the market pricing mechanism , required economic and social interventions . This tendency would be reinforced when Müller-Armack suggested, in the 1960s, a second phase of the social market, more “social”. In France, the main heirs of the Lippmann Colloquium were French neo-liberals: Louis Marlio , Louis Baudin , Daniel Villey, Jacques Rueff , Louis Rougier , but also Maurice Allais . The last three—Rougier , Rueff , and Allais —maintained links of friendship and mutual esteem. Rueff recognized the need for social interventions in the framework of the market economy based on the market pricing mechanism . With regard to Allais , he defended a type of competitive planning “planisme concurrentiel”—and even in the 1940s a “competitive socialism” (“socialisme concurrentiel”), more liberal than socialist—claiming the “social liberalism” and “liberal socialism ” of Léon Walras (whose works inspired him) but also of Lippmann , Detoeuf , and Rougier . Of course, that does not mean that certain authors, Hayek included, have not also been profoundly influenced, in their own way, by the Lippmann Colloquium.
- 87.
Travaux du colloque international du libéralisme économique, Bruxelles, éditions du Centre Paul Hymans, 1957.
References
Amadae, S.M. 2015. Prisoners of Reason: Game Theory and Neoliberal Political Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anon. 1938. Académies, Universités, Ecoles. Le “Colloque” Walter Lippmann. Le Temps. Tuesday August 30, p. 4.
Audier, Serge. 2008. Le Colloque Walter Lippmann: Aux Origines du “Néo-Libéralisme”. Lormont, France: Editions Le Bord de L’Eau.
———. 2012a. Is There a French Neo-Liberalism? In French Liberalism from Montesquieu to the Present Day, ed. Raf Geenens and Helena Rosenblatt, 208–232. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2012b. Néo-libéralisme(s): une archéologie intellectuelle. Paris: Bernard Grasset.
———. 2015. Penser le ‘néo-libéralisme’: Le moment néolibéral, Foucault et la crise du socialisme. Le Bord de l’eau: Lormont.
———. 2016. Néolibéralisme et démocratie dans les années 1930: Louis Rougier et Louis Marlio. Revue de philosophie économique 1: 57–100.
Barrère, Alain. 1958. Histoire de la pensée économique et analyse des théories contemporaines, 1957–1958. Paris: Les Cours de Droit.
Baudin, Louis. 1953. L’aube d’un nouveau libéralisme. Paris: Librarie de Médicis.
Becker, Gary. 1976. The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bilger, François. 1964. La pensée économique libérale dans l’Allemagne contemporaine. Paris: LGDJ.
Blumberg, Georges. 1934. Preface. In Allemagne, IIIe Empire, ed. Calvin B. Hoover. Transl. Georges Blumberg. Paris: Gallimard.
Butterwegge, Christoph, Bettina Lösch, and Ralf Ptak. 2008. Kritik des Neoliberalismus. 2. Verbesserte Auflage. Wiesbaden: Verlag Für Sozialwissenchaften.
Bonefeld, Werner. 2012. Freedom and the Strong State: On German Ordoliberalism. New Political Economy 17 (5): 633–656.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1998. L’essence du néo-libéralisme. Le Monde Diplomatique, March 3.
Bouvier-Ajam, Maurice. 1943. La doctrine corporative. Paris: Recueil Sirey.
Brown, Wendy. 2006. American Nightmare: Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, and De-Democratization. Political Theory 34 (6): 690–714.
Burgin, Angus. 2012. The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free Markets Since the Great Depression. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Canihac, Hugo. 2017. La Fabrique savante de l’Europe. Une archéologie du discours de l’Europe communautaire (1870–1973), Thesis for Doctorate in Political Science, Université de Bordeaux.
Chevènement, Jean-Pierre. 1979. Etre socialiste aujourd’hui. Paris: Cana.
Cockett, Richard. 1994. Thinking the Unthinkable: Think-Tanks and the Economic Counter-Revolution, 1931–83. London: Harper Collins.
Cros, Jacques. 1950. Le néo-libéralisme: Étude positive et critique. Preface by M. Cluseau. Paris: Librarie Médicis.
Dardot, Pierre, and Christian Laval. 2013. The New Way of the World: On Neoliberal Society. Trans. G. Eliott. London: Verso.
———. 2016. Ce cauchemar qui n’en finit pas. Paris: La Découverte.
Déat, Marcel. 1937a. Pour sauver l’expérience. Le front socialiste républicain français, March 18.
———. 1937b. Définissions notre attitude. Le front socialiste républicain français. May 13.
Denord, François. 2001/2002. Aux origines du néo-libéralisme en France: Louis Rougier et le Colloque Walter Lippmann de 1938. Le Mouvement social 195: 9–34.
———. 2009. French Neoliberalism and Its Divisions: From the Colloque Walter Lippmann to the Fifth Republic. In The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective, ed. Philip Mirowski and Dieter Plehwe, 45–67. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Denord, François, and Antoine Schwartz. 2009. l’Europe sociale n’aura pas lieu. Paris: Raisons d’agir.
Dixon, Keith. 1998. Les évangélistes du marché: les intellectuels britanniques et le néo-libéralisme. Paris: Raisons d’agir.
Dominique, Pierre. 1938. Le libéralisme a pour lui l’avenir. La République. July 3.
Fabre-Luce, Alfred. 1946. Hors d’atteinte. Paris.
Flandin, Pierre-Étienne. (1933). Interview with Raymond Millet. “Après la chute du cabinet et avant le congrès de l’Alliance démocratique.” Le Temps, October 25.
Forcey, Charles. 1961. The Crossroads of Liberalism: Croly, Weyl, Lippmann and the Progressive Era, 1900–1925. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Friedman, Milton. 1951. Neoliberalism and Its Prospects. Farmand, February 17: 89–93.
Foucault, Michel. 2008 [1979]. The Birth of the Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. New York: Picador.
Friedrich, Carl. 1955. The Political Thought of Neo-Liberalism. The American Political Science Review 49 (2): 509–525.
Goldschmidt, Nils. 2004. Alfred Müller-Armack and Ludwig Erhard: Social Market Liberalism. Freiburg Discussion Papers on Constitutional Economics No. 4/12. University of Freiburg and Walter Eucken Institut.
Goldschmitt, Nils, and Arnold Berndt. 2005. Leonhard Miksch (1901–1950): A Forgotten Member of the Freiburg School. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 64 (October): 973–998.
Goldschmidt, Nils, and Michael Wohlgemuth. 2008a. Entstehung und Vermächtnis der Freiburger Tradition der Ordnungsökonomik. In Grundtexte zur Freiburger Tradition der Ordnungsökonomik, ed. Nils Goldschmitt and Michel Wohlgemuth. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
———. 2008b. Grundtexte zur Freiburger Tradition der Ordnungsökonomik. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Gregg, Samuel. 2010. Wilhelm Röpke’s Political Economy. Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Halimi, Serge. 2004. Le grand bond en arrière: comment l’ordre libéral s’est impose au monde. Paris: Fayard.
Hartwell, R.M. 1995. A History of the Mont Pèlerin Society. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
Harvey, David. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hayek, Friedrich. 1937 [1971]. Monetary Nationalism and International Stability. Geneva: Graduate School of International Studies. Reprinted, New York: Augustus Kelley.
———. 1939 [1948]. The Economic Conditions of Inter-state Federalism. New Commonwealth Quarterly V (2), September. Reprinted in Individualism and Economic Order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hayek, Friedrich von. 1959. Liberalismus I: Politischer Liberalismus. In Handwörterbuch der Sozialwissenschaften, 591–596. Stuttgart: Fischer.
Howard, Michael, and John King. 2008. The Rise of Neoliberalism in Advanced Capitalist Economies: A Materialist Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Huizinga, Johan. 1936 [1935]. In the Shadow of Tomorrow. New York: W.W. Norton.
Hülsmann, Jörg-Guido. 2007. Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism. Auburn: Mises Institute.
Jackson, Ben. 2010. At the Origins of Neo-Liberalism: The Free Economy and the Strong State, 1930–1947. The Historical Journal 53 (1): 129–151.
James, Harold. 2003. Europe Reborn: A History 1914–2000. Harlow, UK: Pearson.
Jones, Daniel Stedman. 2012. Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kennedy, Ellen. 2004. Constitutional Failure: Carl Schmitt in Weimar. Durham: Duke University Press.
Klein, Naomi. 2007. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. New York: Picador.
Kloppenberg, James. 1986. Uncertain Victory: Social-Democracy and Progressivism in European and American Thought, 1870–1920. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kotz, David. 2015. The Rise and Fall of Neoliberal Capitalism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lalande, André. 1935. Congrès de philosophie et d’éducation morale. Séances et travaux de l’Académie des sciences morales et politiques, compte rendu, Paris, Alcan, p. 223.
Lambert, Paul. 1963. L’oeuvre de John Maynard Keynes: Exposé, Analyse Critique, Prolongements. The Hague: Nihoff.
Lavergne, Bernard. 1957. Exposé de Bernard Lavergne sur les dangers du Marché commun et de l’Euratom (15 mai 1957). Available at the University of Luxembourg Centre Virtuel de la Connaissance de l’Europe, http://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/2007/2/21/99afb424-6550-404a-85dd-a021c91463f0/publishable_fr.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2017.
Lepage, Henri. 1978. Demain le capitalisme. Paris: Le Livre de poche.
———. 1983. Demain le libéralisme. Paris: Le Livre de poche.
Lichbach, Mark. 2003. Is Rational Choice Theory All of Social Science? Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Lippmann, Walter. 1937 [2005]. The Good Society. Reprint, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Marculesco, Michel. 1943. La critique du libéralisme d’après les auteurs neo-libéraux: thèse de doctorat. Paris: Lavergne.
Marion, Mathieu. 2004. Investigating Rougier. In Cahiers d’Épistémologie. Montréal: Université du Québec à Montréal.
Mirowski, Philip, and Dieter Plehwe, eds. 2009. The Road From Mont Pelerin: The Making of the Liberal Thought Collective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mirowski, Philip. 2013. Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown. London: Verso.
Mises, Ludwig von. 1959. Liberalismus II: Wirtschaftliger Liberalismus. In Handwörterbuch der Sozialwissenschaften, vol. VI, 596–603. Stuttgart: Fischer.
Montigny, Gilles. 2016. Introduction. In Keynes, Abstraction et Expérience: Sur la Théorie Générale, ed. Maurice Halbwachs. Paris: Ulm.
Nord, Philip. 2010. France’s New Deal: From the Thirties to the Postwar Era. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Parain, Brice, and Georges Blumberg. 1933. Documents sur le National-Socialisme. La NRF, August 1: 234–262.
Pirou, Gaëtan. 1934. La crise du capitalisme. Paris: Sirey.
———. 1939. Néo-libéralisme, Néo-Corporatisme, Néo-Socialisme. Paris: Gallimard.
———. 1941. Les doctrines économiques en France depuis 1870. Paris: Armand Colin.
Plehwe, Dieter, Bernhard Walpen, and Christoph Lieber. 2007. Neoliberale Denkkollektive und ihr Denkstil. In Kapitalismus Reloaded. Kontroversen zu Imperialismus, Empire und Hegemonie, ed. G. Arrighi et al., 347–371. Hamburg: VSA-Verlag.
Pont, Jean-Claude, and Flavia Padovani. 2006. Louis Rougier: Vie et Œuvre d’un Philosophe Engagé. Philosophia scientiae 10 (2).
Prasad, Monica. 2006. The Politics of Free Markets: The Rise of Neoliberal Economic Policies in Britain, France, Germany and the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ptak, Ralf. 2004. Vom Ordoliberalismus zur Sozialen Marktwirtschaft. Stationen des Neoliberalismus in deutschland. Opladen: Leske-Budrich.
Robbins, Lionel. 1937. Economic Planning and International Order. London: Macmillan.
Roche, Emile. 1938. Libéralisme interventionniste et direction économique. La République May 25.
Röpke, Wilhelm. 1953. Alte und neue Ökonomie. In Wirtschaft ohne Wunder, ed. A. Hunold, 66–96. Erlenbach-Zurich: Eugen Rentsch.
Rosanvallon, Pierre. 1989. The Development of Keynesianism in France. In The Political Power of Economic Ideas, ed. Peter Hall, 171–193. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rougier, Louis. 1936a. Allocution d’ouverture du Congrès. Actes du Congrès international de philosophie scientifique, I, Philosophie scientifique et empirisme logique, Paris, Hermann & Cie. pp. 7–9.
———. 1936b. Allocution finale. Actes du Congrès international de philosophie scientifique, VIII, Histoire de la logique et de la philosophie scientifique, Paris, Hermann & Cie, pp. 88–91.
———. 1938a. Les Mystiques économiques. Comment l’on passe des démocraties libérales aux Etats totalitaires. Paris: Médicis.
———. 1938b. Letter to Luigi Einaudi. Archivio Storico della Fondazione Luigi Einaudi, Rougier file.
———. 1938c. Retour au libéralisme. La Revue de Paris, January 1: 179–197.
———. 1938d Parmi les livres, La Revue de Paris, August 1: 711–713.
———. 1939. L’offensive du néo-libéralisme. Conference at the Société d’économie politique de Lyon.
———. 1961. Le libéralisme économique et politique. Les essais 1–2, special issue on Les tendances modernes du libéralisme économique, 37–75.
Rüstow, Alexander. 1982 [1932]. Liberal Intervention. In Standard Texts on the Social Market Economy, ed. Wolfgang Stützel, Christian Watrin, Hans Willgerodt, and Karl Hohmann, 183–186. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer.
Simons, Henry. 1934. A Positive Program for Laissez Faire: Some Proposals for a Liberal Economic Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Steel, Ronald. 1980. Walter Lippmann and the American Century. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Steger, Manfred, and Ravi Roy. 2010. Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stiglitz, Joseph. 2008. The End of Neo-Liberalism? Project Syndicate. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-end-of-neo-liberalism
Thatcher, Mark, and Vivien Schmidt. 2013. Theorizing Ideational Continuity: The Resilience of Neo-liberal Ideas. In Resilient Liberalism in Europe’s Political Economy, ed. Vivien Schmidt and Mark Thatcher. 1–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vanberg, Viktor. 2001. The Freiburg School of Law and Economics: Predecessor of Constitutional Economics. In The Constitution of Markets: Essays in Political Economy, 37–51. London: Routledge.
Visone, Tommaso. 2015. L’Europa oltre l’Europa. Metamorfosi di un’idea nella crisi degli anni Trenta. Pisa: Edizioni ETS.
von Hayek, Friedrich. 1984. Le libéralisme classique est devenu la nouvelle pensée. Le Figaro 91 (March 10): 18.
Travaux du colloque international du libéralisme économique. 1957. Brussels: éditions du Centre Paul Hymans.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Reinhoudt, J., Audier, S. (2018). Introduction. In: The Walter Lippmann Colloquium. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65885-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65885-8_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-65884-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-65885-8
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)