In the past, Financial Times columnists were predominantly white, male, Oxbridge-educated world travelers, mainly fans of neoliberalism and centrist to libertarian right politics. Neoliberalism, with a lack of clear definition, encompassed deregulation and trade liberalization. Clearance for countries across the world to adopt these policies led to a post–Cold War hyperglobalization. Neoliberalism was supported by policy makers from both major parties. However, in recent years, there has been a change in sentiment, notably with the hiring of new voices by the Financial Times. The neo-liberal failure has become a central theme in the work of these new voices. Neoliberalism has become a taboo term in the United States, where both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree the globalization of the past should end.
It took rhetorical beating until 2008, but now coherent alternative ideas are being put forward. Various think tanks have created new initiatives within heterodox economics, and funding from organizations such as the Hewlett Foundation are yielding results. High-ranking officials have been explicit in criticizing “oversimplified market efficiency” and focusing on resilience in their policies, leading to a pivot to industrial policy and domestic production. However, it is being argued that these ideas are based on a false premise. Foroohar suggested a questioning of conventional economic wisdom, emphasizing national self-sufficiency. The sustained negative effects of China’s entry into the WTO on U.S. manufacturing prove to others that the economy should not depend too much on outside countries, especially in times of crises like the pandemic and the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. The proponents of these post-neoliberal ideas can now back up their claims with recent research and powerful political support.