Although some have said the political dimension of this hypotheses addresses the
‘survival of capitalism’ (Foucault, 1979), Ordo-liberals reject this idea, mainly
due to them not believing in capitalism as such. Ordo-liberals don’t believe in
capitalism as there is “no logic in capitalism”, instead they believe in a capitalist
system’ - and that this system is a social construct (Sally. 1996). Ordo-Liberals
believe the market should be an object of social intervention and political
intervention, not a domain of autonomous rules. They also reject Sombart’s
proposal that innate to modern economy is an irreversible development into a
“uniform mass society” (Sombart, 1934), saying that actually this scenario
appears due to planning methods and bureaucratic apparatus deployed by
‘enemies of the market mechanism’ (Lemke, 2001). According to themselves, the
trajectory of ordo-liberalism does not intend to ‘spawn a uniform society’ but
instead this ideology represents a new direction intended to lead directly away
from the ‘homogenizing effects of mass society’. Therefore allowing Ordoliberals
to deny that any utopic vision is attached to their ideology. Rather than
preaching homogeneity, it is an ideology with variety and diversity in mind.
Ordo-liberals believe problems naturally arise in society and that these should be
dealt with through political-institutional ‘inventions’. They stress that the survival
of the capitalist system relies on the political capacity to construct innovative
answers. These answers must be available to subdue the more or less “contingent
structural compulsions and blockages that are naturally apart of this system and
of which it is subject to” (Lemke, 2001, p.195)
Ordo-Liberals thus developed their ideas of a ‘social market economy’. This
belief entailed that the market must constantly be supported by political
regulations, whilst being reinforced through social interventions, such as housing
policy, support for the unemployed, healthcare etc (Stanfield, 1991). For OrdoLiberals
capitalism does not exist as a single entity, but rather capitalism is an
economic-institutional entity, which is historically open and can be changed
politically. This belief of a malleable economic domain led to the creation of a
‘social policy’ or ‘Gesellschaftspolitik’ (Eucken, 1940). Unlike traditional
policies, which have as their aim the distribution or management of the budget,
this new social policy had a role of ‘active creation of the historical and social
conditions for the market’ (Sembou, 2013). Whereas the traditional aim had been
to lessen the anti-social consequences of the market, the new aim was for the state
to block the anti-competitive mechanisms which societies were thought to spawn.
Leading to the more or less explicit advocacy of a technocratic politics, able to
hang onto democratic procedures except in any instance where the policy yielded
by democratic processes contradicts the advice of economic experts, “the experts
must always prevail” (Röpke, 2014).
The two main strands of this social policy were; universalization of the
‘entrepreneurial form’ and the re-definition of the law (Lemke, 2001). This
universalization, or encouragement of entrepreneurship, follows the principle of
‘equal inequality for all’. Its strategy being to constantly increase and expand the
entrepreneurial form and tendencies within society. The aim of this growth is to
“generate a model for social relations per se from economic mechanisms” such
as supply and demand, or competition (Hunold, 1961). Also, it fulfils the role of
what Rüstow called a ‘vital policy’, geared to reproduce and re-activate “the
moral and cultural values” that facilitate a functioning and competitive market
(Gordon, 1987). The re-definition of the law, works to bolster this vital policy,
by using law to further support the creation of an entrepreneurial society. This redefinition
aims to take law away from being a ‘super-structural phenomenon’,
turning it into an ‘economic-institutional one’ (Lemke, 2001, p.196), becoming
an “indispensable instrument for creating entrepreneurial forms within society”.
