Reframing centre-left neoliberalism: New Keynesian theory, Third Way ideology, and the construction of an elite consensus in the US, Britain, and Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to contribute to a growing literature on the role of social democratic and progressive parties in shaping neoliberalism. We argue that existing literature has not fully recognised the unique intellectual and ideological traditions of the Centre-Left as a distinctive wing of neoliberalism. Much of this confusion can be resolved by examining the unique ideological contributions of New Keynesian economics in the context of a Gramscian political analysis. Focusing on Centre-Left Anglo-American governments in the US, Britain, and Australia throughout the 1990s and 2000s, we demonstrate how New Keynesian theories provided the intellectual justification for the Third Way’s ideological project and model of state interventionism at the height of the neoliberal period. While Centre-Left political parties in these Anglo-American states have recently sought to re-invent themselves under a new interventionist economic paradigm, we conclude by showing how they have continued to reproduce orthodoxies associated with the New Keynesian consensus.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".