‘A Common Sense of the Times’? Neo‐liberalism and Changing Public Opinion in New Zealand and the UK

Abstract

Neo-liberalism represents a significant and enduring shift in the politics shaping social policy. Although frequently ascribed a hegemonic, all-powerful status that focuses our attention on the coherence found in neo-liberal policies, this article builds on scholarly work highlighting variegation in the neo-liberal project across different policy areas, national settings and time periods. Specifically, it employs Peck's and Tickell's (2002) view that neo-liberalism has gone through multiple phases in response to both external and internal crises as an entry point for studying neo-liberalism's impact on public support for the welfare state. Drawing upon New Zealand and British attitudinal data, the article argues that public reactions to an early period of retrenchment ('roll-back' neo-liberalism) differ from those reported in the 'roll-out' or embedding phase of neo-liberalism implemented by Third Way Labour Governments in both countries. Indeed, continuing public support in many policy areas arguably contributed to the internal crisis that provoked an adaptation to the neo-liberal project. The article further explores public support for the welfare state following the external crisis provoked by the financial meltdown of 2008-09 asking whether New Zealand and British attitudes showed signs of resisting austerity measures or whether they, instead, indicated a third, 'roll-over' period of neo-liberalism where the public accepted not only a neo-liberal economic agenda but also the need for further retrenchment of the welfare state. Conclusions about the politics of social policy at the level of public opinion offer both good and bad news for welfare state advocates.

Food banks and the production of scarcity

“…But it is also possible to point to a more active manipulation of discourses of scarcity by the architects of austerity designed to secure but disguise a particular moral economy. For example, pointing to issues of finitude and futurity but carefully ignoring the money that had been found to bail out the banks (monies which continue to be excluded from calculations of the national debt made by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR, 2019)), its proponents seem largely to have persuaded the British electorate that the Exchequer is "empty" (and that spending cannot resume until its coffers are full), and that future growth is dependent on a "tightening of belts" nowsuch that, even if their scale might be debated, cuts to the public purse have largely been accepted as both necessary and inevitable (Humpage, 2015).…”

Healthcare governance, professions and populism: Is there a relationship? An explorative comparison of five European countries

“…This nationalist discourse is especially powerful, because close identification with the NHS is widespread in the UK and serves as a resource for those wishing to manipulate and shape national identities (portraying the EU citizens as outsiders). Widely perceived to be a national treasure [52], these populist appeals promoted the image of a struggling health service that would be thriving, if it were not for the technical 'Eurocrats'…”

The poor “sociological imagination” of the rich: Explaining attitudinal divergence towards welfare, inequality, and redistribution

“…In light of this, this article draws on a qualitative study of welfare attitudes and experiences undertaken in New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Over the last 30 years, the rise of economic individualism has been variegated and geographically distinct across both countries (Humpage, ). Nonetheless, income inequality has increased significantly in both countries since the 1980s (OECD, ).…”