# The Neoliberal Order's Unraveling: A Generational Story That Misses the Mark
Global strategist Viktor Shvets argues that neoliberalism, the economic ideology that has dominated policy for four decades, is collapsing. His new book, "The Twilight Before the Storm," traces how Western economies moved from the fractured 1930s through the postwar consensus to today's crisis-prone systems. Shvets points blame at baby boomers for their role in creating and sustaining the neoliberal model. But the story of neoliberalism's decline runs deeper than one generation's choices.
Shvets' core claim holds weight. Neoliberalism, the school of thought prioritizing deregulation, privatization, and market-driven solutions, has faced mounting challenges. Rising inequality, financial instability, climate inaction, and public skepticism of free markets have created political openings for alternatives. The 2008 financial crisis, the 2020 pandemic, and recent inflation spikes have all exposed gaps in market-only thinking. Governments worldwide have intervened more aggressively than neoliberal theory would permit, suggesting the ideology's grip has loosened.
Yet blaming boomers flattens a more complex history. Neoliberalism did not emerge as a generational preference. It arose from specific intellectual movements, institutional choices, and geopolitical pressures. Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and the Chicago School developed these ideas decades before boomers held power. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan championed deregulation in the 1980s, but they responded to stagflation, union militancy, and Cold War competition, not generational impulse alone.
Boomers did inherit and expand neoliberal policies through finance, technology, and politics. Their control of universities, corporations, and governments from the 1990s onward shaped outcomes. But Gen X and millennials have also managed hedge funds, run tech companies, and staffed regulatory agencies while neoliberalism persisted. Current crises reflect not boomer values but entrenched systems that younger generations have often reinforced.
What matters for students, parents, and educators is how this ideological shift shapes education policy. Neoliberalism produced school choice, charter expansion, student debt financing, and university corporatization. If neoliberalism truly retreats, education may reorient toward public investment, debt relief, and equity-focused governance. Early signs exist. The Biden administration's student loan forgiveness attempt reflected anti-neoliberal thinking. Several states have capped charter school growth. Yet resistance remains fierce. EdChoice advocates and privatization proponents still shape policy in many districts.
The question is not whether boomers caused this crisis but whether political will exists to build alternatives. Younger voters show openness to public spending, unions, and regulation. But institutional inertia runs strong. Universities still chase prestige rankings tied to selectivity. School districts still compete for test scores. Colleges still burden students with loans.
Shvets' framework offers a useful reminder that economic systems do collapse and reform. The 1930s-1970s postwar consensus did give way to neoliberalism. Today's crisis culture may indeed herald another transition. But that transition will depend on choices by policymakers, voters, and educators across generations, not on demographic blame. How education institutions respond to this shift will determine whether the next system serves broader publics or recreates similar inequalities under new names.