What is neoliberalism?

Andy Burnham has vowed to ‘end business as usual’ and abandon 40 years of neoliberalism. But what exactly is it? Commonly described (though hazily defined) as a philosophy which advocates free market capitalism, private enterprise and a small state, neoliberalism promotes deregulation and increased intervention by the private sector in public services. It is inherently political and generally advocated by right-leaning bodies which espouse libertarianism and the primacy of market forces, though its influence is evident in public policy across the political spectrum.

A global behemoth, the influence of neoliberalism is everywhere. Often blamed for the erosion of workers’ rights and security, proliferation of zero-hours contracts and extreme wealth inequality, its influence can be seen throughout the corporate world, from small enterprises to international mega-corporations which directly influence all our lives.

The political and socio-economic context for neoliberalism in the UK

Neoliberalism’s influence took hold with a vengeance in the 1980s. Inspired by Margaret Thatcher’s love affair with the philosophy of economist Friedrich Hayek, and bolstered by ‘Reaganomics’ on the other side of the pond, the post-war consensus was systematically replaced by the notions of personal freedom, lower taxation, private property rights, the rule of law and anti-authoritarianism. From the late 1990s, Tony Blair’s admiration for Thatcher, New Labour’s Private Finance Initiative and emphasis on performance management accelerated competition and marketisation in the public sector, expanded by subsequent administrations.

Intimately enmeshed with neoliberalism, managerialism incorporates leadership and performance management styles which typically include numerical targets, league tables and output measures, often administered within a culture of micromanagement, designed to enhance ‘efficiency and effectiveness’. I suggest that the wholesale adoption of these measures by central government has brought about a crisis of public safety which is endemic, complex and hiding in plain sight. 

 It is no coincidence that, during the four decades to which Burnham is referring, we have seen a succession of high-profile institutional failures, including Hillsborough, the Post Office, the Mid Staffs NHS Trust, Grenfell, the infected blood scandal and many others. In each case, public inquiries and investigations have resulted in a list of recommendations specific to its circumstances, yet there is a gap in our interrogation of factors common to such tragedies, which has prevented deeper understanding of what is going wrong.

At the same time, we have witnessed ruthless profiteering, wasted public money and falling standards as evidenced, for example, by the Covid PPE scandal, private social care and the failings of privatised water companies; examples which underline the stark contrast between the ideology of neoliberalism and the post-war sense of collective struggle which led to the welfare state. Neoliberalism rewards competition, self-protection and self-reliance rather than collectivism and concern for each other, a belief system which has created ideal conditions for human suffering.  What we are witnessing is the disastrous clash of two opposing ideologies: the post-war state built on social solidarity, superimposed with the political philosophy of individualism and the free market.

In my own field of criminal justice and social work academia, examples include the disastrous part-privatisation of probation, the impact of contracted-out accommodation services for looked-after children, unsafe private prisons, and the crisis in higher education.

My career has spanned the same four decades and afforded me a ringside seat alongside personal (sometimes traumatic) experience of the history and impact of neoliberalism in public services. I worked for the probation service for 25 years, 10 of them at senior level, including a secondment to the Home Office during the New Labour era. Though appointed as a probation officer in 1983, it was not until the advent of New Labour that I felt the impact of neoliberalism most powerfully; their national performance management frameworks and commissioning processes cut across and undermined evidence and research-based approaches to working with offenders, paving the way for the ravages of subsequent administrations.  

It is, however, the Grayling reforms to probation of 2014 (luckily for me after I had moved on) which most scandalously illustrate the impact of political ambition on public safety. Graphically recounted by Ian Dunt in the introduction to his book How Westminster Works and Why it Doesn’t, then-Justice Secretary Chris Grayling, purely for reasons of ideology and political ambition, and against the advice of his own department, decided to contract out the majority of the probation service’s work to a range of private companies on a payment-by-results basis. The outcome was disastrous. Grayling’s actions were described by the Public Accounts Committee as taking unacceptable risks with public money, damning criticism was levelled from the probation inspectorate and failures in the standard of supervision and critical errors by overwhelmed probation staff were noted in high-profile serious offences such as the Killamarsh murders of 2021. Within the same year, the Conservative government returned all offender management work to the National Probation Service.

Over more recent years, in a ruthlessly competitive higher education sector beset with financial challenges, I have witnessed and personally experienced bullying, silencing and isolating behaviours which leave staff feeling alienated, de-professionalised and suffering from moral injury and mental distress. Successful academic careers are often sacrificed or blighted within a system increasingly focused on survival and reputation over academic rigour and ethical practice, as evidenced by the treatment of a whistleblower who recently won a tribunal case against the University of Cambridge.  

After more than four decades of psychological battering by the trade winds of neoliberal ideology and now semi-retired, I decided to do something about it. I founded and now coordinate ECHO (Ethical, Compassionate, Humane Organisations) through a small, international group of senior academics and professionals, friends and colleagues with whom I have worked on various projects who share my interest and desire to find a better way. I recently wrote an article for Professional Social Work, the journal of the British Association of Social Workers, about the work of ECHO, aspects of which are included here. 

The psychological and behavioural impact of neoliberalism

The impact of neoliberalism at the structural level is well documented.What is less well understood is its influence on the behaviour of individuals, most significantly that of leaders and managers. Assuming most people who enter public service do so with the intention to improve the circumstances of others, it is vital to understand what factors may cause well-meaning individuals to make decisions which bring about widespread suffering and tragedy.

Applying Professor of Psychology Paul Gilbert’s Affect Regulation System to the behaviour of senior managers in high profile cases can help to explain what may be happening: 

The threat (red), drive (blue) and soothing (green) systems need to be in balance for a healthy life (or, in this case, organisation). Imbalance occurs when senior leaders’ threat system is over-worked by fear of loss of livelihood or reputation. The drive system then becomes focused on survival, and the soothing system, which should divert attention onto public safety, employee wellbeing and ethical, humane practice, stops working. These are primal human instincts; in short, when faced with the desperation to survive, which the competitive and individualist ideology of neoliberalism is hard-wired to promote, we lose compassion for and disengage from the suffering of others.

In the case of the Post Office, fears about reputation and personal survival may have caused leaders to ignore or re-frame warnings about the Horizon system and prevented curiosity about why there were so many prosecutions of sub-postmasters.  In a display of disengagement from the suffering of others, during the inquiry, some employees of the Post Office still refused to acknowledge the problems with Horizon and appeared to blame innocent sub postmasters

A quote from the recently published Nottingham Ockenden Report describes a bullying and toxic working culture:

“A small number of powerful leaders described in both family and staff testimonies as having infected the unit, creating an environment in which bullying was normalised, speaking up was dangerous and governance was shaped by self-protection, rather than patient safety.”

In the Mid Staffs NHS Trust case, relentless pursuit of Foundation Trust status created a toxic culture and deteriorating standards of care, resulting in many unnecessary deaths. 

Even as this article is published, the Thirlwall Inquiry report provides further graphic illustration of the issues discussed here. Letby’s ultimate guilt or innocence is a matter for the criminal justice system, about which no assumption is made; it is the behaviour of leaders, when presented with the possibility that a nurse may be harming babies, which once again illustrates self-protection and reputation management over public safety.

You will get the idea; the same self-protective factors can be seen in university cultures, the Hillsborough tragedy and many more. The dangers are clear.

What is common to these cases is that senior executives appear to behave with impunity, as though their activities and decisions lie within a protected bubble, leading to over confidence, disconnection from the wider picture and hubris, defined by Laker, Cobb and Trehan in Too Proud to Lead as:

“no prisoners taken, lack of care for others, fierce defence of reputation and power and, above all, defiant and dangerous self-interest” 

A ManagingLifeatWork.com article applies Bandura’s Moral Disengagement Theory to explain how individuals can behave against their own moral standards, where, for example, less ethical organisational structures and practices to which they are committed as employees dominate their thinking.

What is the solution?

Four decades of neoliberalism have left us with a system based on fragmentation, competition and superficial measurement which, albeit inadvertently, rewards reputation over substance and safety, and can result in distortion, deception and perverse outcomes. A trolley is redesignated a bed, a flawed IT system works perfectly, whistleblowers are silenced, and humanistic organisations focus exclusively on marketing and reputation management. The evidence that this system is broken and dangerous lies before us in the common factors which characterise tragedy after tragedy, the full details of which can take decades to emerge, sometimes only through the sustained efforts of victims, and mechanisms for holding those responsible to account seem inadequate.

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill, also known as the Hillsborough Law, which requires public authorities and officials to demonstrate candour, transparency and frankness, promotes ethical behaviour and criminalises misconduct, is therefore vital, long awaited and necessary – but not sufficient. The legislation essentially addresses the behaviour of officials, yet its impact will be lessened without associated initiatives designed to identify and ameliorate the structural and systemic factors which potentially encourage and enable that behaviour.   

Burnham famously promotes problem solving over point scoring; if his ambition to end the influence of neoliberalism in the UK is to be achieved, the impact of flawed public policy must be acknowledged, and solutions formulated which avoid past mistakes. Revising commissioning processes to avoid profiteering by the private sector is only one element; politicians must recognise the impact of their decisions as active participants in a flawed system which urgently requires revision, in which mistakes are still being made. An example enacted by the current administration, the recent introduction of NHS hospital league tables, has drawn criticism over its potential for unintended consequences from the King’s Fund and Nursing Times among others. 

So how could ECHO help? Over the past few years, we have been working on a leadership model suitable for politicians and senior executives in public bodies – the incorporation of both into a flexible programme of support, development and intellectual challenge is a vital factor in ECHO’s systemic approach to change. The programme includes an exploration of the issues I have discussed in this article, establishing an understanding of the complex forces which have shaped our current situation and demonstrating why it needs to change. The focus is on improving public safety and wellbeing through ethically constructed public policy, avoidance of unintended consequences, and a leadership model which incorporates critical thinking, reflexivity and curiosity. Case studies, examples of excellent practice and participants’ experiences apply the methodology to real world situations. We have included safeguards such as individual mentoring and group support, and the programme incorporates independent evaluation through an action research model, to provide ongoing feedback.

In the hope that Andy Burnham may be listening, I have a question for him: could the work of ECHO help with your mission to abandon neoliberalism? 

—

Kath Morris is a semi-retired social work academic, independent trainer, mentor and former probation senior manager; she founded and coordinates ECHO: a small collaboration of senior academics and professionals dedicated to promoting ethical, compassionate, humane organisations.