Polanyi's Double Movement Contribute To The Rise Of Neoliberalism?

In 1944 Polanyi developed a political model to explain and understand the rise and fall of liberalism in the 19th century. His model, the “Double Movement,” provides a useful means for understanding class conflict in industrial capitalist societies. Though his model was created to analyze the domestic industrial society of the 19th century, his can ideas explain the cause of domestic instability in regards to the rise of neoliberalism as well as the effect domestic instability has on the international sphere. This model explains modern political tension and lack of domestic cohesion which Martin Wolf argues is critical for international stability in his piece The Liberal International Order is Sick.

The industrial revolution of the 1770’s
In his ’s book, A Brief History of Neoliberalism David Harvey argues that the rise of neoliberalism in the late 20th century was an intentional movement in economic elite class restoration (38). The resurgence began in the 1970s, becoming known as neoliberalism, and commonly associated with Nixon, Reagan, and Thatcher. They, and other neoliberals, promoted the resurgence of classical liberalism that prioritizes free market, free trade, privatization, and individual liberty (Harvey 6-7, 13). Applying Polanyi’s double movement model offers an explanation to the class restoration Harvey sees and provides insight into the role class plays in neoliberalism. After World War II Keynesian economics gained popularity around the world and threatened the upper classes’ economic and political power. In response, Neoliberals took action to protect their interests. After finding success in Chile, neoliberal policies took hold in the United States, then spread throughout the world in the 1970’s (Harvey 15-6). Similarly to what occurred in Great Britain the 1770s, the neoliberal policies of the upper elite class were met with resistance from the working and middle class supporting Keynesian economics recreating Polanyi’s “double movement.” Viewing this period through his class lens, the upper class felt their needs were not balanced with those of the lower classes in the post-war period, thus they took political action to enact economic policies that served themselves. In their efforts, the upper class ignored the rest of society's needs in this dramatic shift, unbalancing the precarious double movement. Ultimately, the imbalance became so pronounced that the lower classes Harvey writes of in the late 20th century felt disenfranchised from political and economic