Market Fundamentalism - History of The Term

History of The Term

The expression "market fundamentalism" was popularized by business magnate and philanthropist George Soros in his book The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998), in which he writes "This idea was called laissez faire in the nineteenth century... I have found a better name for it: market fundamentalism.". P. Sainath believes Jeremy Seabrook, a journalist and campaigner, first used the term. The term was used by John Langmore and John Quiggin in their 1994 book Work for All. A full description of the origins of the free market economics dating as far back to the conception of natural laws as mathematical, eternal and absolute—a reflection of some perfect mathematical form—derived from ancient Greek philosophers Pythagoras (569–500 BC) and Plato, and reinvigorated by the Enlightenment is well beyond the scope of this article, but can be read on Chapter 4, A Brief Account of the Historical Origins of Economic Fundamentalism, in Dr. Lee Boldman's book (2007).

The expression is now used by various authors writing on economic topics to signify an allegedly unjustified belief in the ability of markets to solve all problems in a society. The term has been used, pejoratively, to criticize some groups which are mainly viewed as advocating strongly against "any" state regulation and defend a "totally" free market. It is also used to disparage the arguments of the proponents of "the virtues of radical free-market economics" or, in Soros' own words, against the "ideology" which "has put financial capital into the driver's seat."

Joseph E. Stiglitz used the term in his autobiographical essay in acceptance of Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences to criticize some International Monetary Fund policies: "More broadly, the IMF was advocating a set of policies which is generally referred to alternatively as the Washington consensus, the neo-liberal doctrines, or market fundamentalism, based on an incorrect understanding of economic theory and (what I viewed) as an inadequate interpretation of the historical data."