Conclusions

Economic liberalization is not a precisely defined process – even by its main advocates. It is typically identified as involving de-regulation with an emphasis on ‘free’ markets, but even these identifiers are misleading. The process of deregulation is perhaps more appropriately described as one of re-regulation since it is usually not so much about the removal of regulation as it is a re-orientation of the ‘rules of the game’ (which is likely to privilege certain groups over others), despite the freeness implied in the process. This in turn creates the second incongruity; the use the terms ‘free’ and ‘competitive’ – often interchangeably – to describe liberal markets. Economic liberals argue that markets should be free from government intervention; and individuals (and organizations) should be free to compete in markets. However, as we have already seen, markets are not, in fact, the force of nature that many liberal apologists claim them to be. They are political and social constructs (Fligstein 1996); and the ability to effectively compete in markets is likely to depend upon the state ensuring that they perform as intended. Truly competitive markets require intervention – by law and the state – to ensure a level playing field that allows market actors to compete on meaningful criteria. This gives rise to the question of how, to what extent and when the state should intervene – not whether the state should intervene at all. Moreover, since markets are vulnerable to domination by particular interest groups as their economic power increases, they can never really be ‘free’ in the sense that economic liberals theorize them to be.