ABSTRACT
Short of retelling a story that some have read many times, it is possible to admit that trends in thought, like economic and social occurrences, follow cycles, the phases of which are punctuated by periods of rapid development, maturity, crisis and renewal. Often referred to today as neoliberalism, it also comes from the renewal phase of this liberal trend. With its origins in philosophy (works by John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, etc.), liberalism had its glory days in the nineteenth century (in France, it would be successively embodied in the work of Jean-Baptiste Say, Gustave de Molinari, Michel Chevalier, etc.) before being overshadowed by collectivism. This is, at least, what Walter Lippmann seemed to think in the initial pages of his book The Good Society: “Between 1848 and 1870, the intellectual climate of Western society changed. The rise of collectivism began. England remains faithful to free trade until the war of 1914, but elsewhere, the protectionist doctrine grew in popularity” (1937, p. 55). After 1870, men began thinking in terms of organisation (industrial concentration, elimination of competition), authority and collective power (the notion of democracy was changing). As of 1917, some officially established States would even have a taste of planning, and the world would be witness to the Russian, Italian and German experiences. The 1929 crisis linked to the collapse of liberalism would only serve to support collectivist and totalitarian theories. This is the context in which we should place the origins of neoliberalism and ordoliberalism, or more generally the attempts at re-evaluating nineteenth century liberal ideas. The search for a third option that does not lend itself to a confusion with the central planning or “laisser faire-laisser passer”, is clearly evoked by Louis Rougier in his speech at the Lippmann Conference:
Being liberal is not, like advocates of “Manchesterism”, leaving cars to move as they wish in any direction, resulting in incessant traffic jams and accidents; nor is it, like advocates of central planning, imposing fixed time limits and itineraries on each car; it is putting in place a set of road rules which is flexible in light of differences between peak hours and off-peak hours.
