The view that neoliberalism has become, and remains, the dominant ideology of economic statecraft in most parts of the world is widespread within critical social science scholarship. But there is no settled view on the nature of ‘the neoliberal state’ (see Plant, 2009; Weiss, 2012). Is there such a thing? Despite many scholars’ confidence in the influence of neoliberalism on economic and social policy across many countries, the sheer diversity of policy practices and institutional structures to which the label ‘neoliberal’ has been applied means the archetypal state form of neoliberalism is difficult to discern. This is partly because the defining characteristics of neoliberalism are contested (allowing some to claim the category is redundant as anything other than a broad heuristic). And it is partly because of the concurrence of a widespread adherence to neoliberal ideas and the process of financialization (allowing some to claim that the category has been overtaken in importance in explanatory terms). The response to the pandemic has muddied the waters still further. There are now lots of suggestions that there can be ‘no going back’ to the economic world as it was before. But when it is so difficult to specify what the characteristics of that world were, problems obviously arise in describing what lies beyond it.

中文翻译：

---

关于金融化、国家行动和新自由主义化的有争议的政策实践的专题介绍

新自由主义已经成为并且仍然是世界大部分地区经济治国的主导意识形态的观点在批判性社会科学学术中广泛存在。但对于“新自由主义国家”的性质并没有固定的看法（参见 Plant，2009；Weiss，2012）。有这样的事吗？尽管许多学者对新自由主义对许多国家的经济和社会政策的影响充满信心，但使用“新自由主义”标签的政策实践和制度结构的绝对多样性意味着新自由主义的原型国家形式难以辨别。这部分是因为新自由主义的定义特征受到质疑（允许一些人声称该类别是多余的，而不是广泛的启发式）。部分原因是广泛遵守新自由主义思想和金融化进程（允许一些人声称该类别在解释性方面的重要性已超过）。对大流行的反应使情况更加混乱。现在有很多建议表明，经济世界不会像以前那样“回到过去”。但是，当很难具体说明那个世界的特征时，在描述它之外的东西时显然会出现问题。现在有很多建议表明，经济世界不会像以前那样“回到过去”。但是，当很难具体说明那个世界的特征时，在描述它之外的东西时显然会出现问题。现在有很多建议表明，经济世界不会像以前那样“回到过去”。但是，当很难具体说明那个世界的特征时，在描述它之外的东西时显然会出现问题。