Neoliberalism’s New Clothes: Abundance and the ‘Fourth Way’.

ISSUE 7 / POLITICS

There has been substantial discourse regarding the opportunity party as of late. After two significant rebrands, they seem to have finally struck a chord with voters. At the time of writing, the latest 1News Verian Poll has put them at 4.6%, right on the cusp of the 5% needed to enter parliament. Being described as the “dark horse” of this election, if they are able to pass the 5% threshold they will be put into a kingmaker position—further exemplifying their parliamentary importance. However, a critical breakdown and analysis of Opportunity policy is markedly missing, with all articles I have found in the mainstream having nothing but praise. Even Marama Davidson has recently voiced support for their policies. A deep analysis of their policy proposals is sorely needed, beyond just their self-described “radical-centrist”, “pragmatic”, and “blue-green politics” positions. Their increasing numbers are a clear result of the disillusionment with the two major parties, and, by extension, neoliberalism. This is further evidenced by National and Labour recording their lowest combined polling in 30 years, reflecting widespread frustration with the policy gridlock created by an electoral pendulum that prioritises partisan conflict over solutions, problems Opportunity correctly identifies.

However, whilst Opportunity argues that current politics is woefully ill-equipped to deal with the most pressing issues today—that of the housing crisis, cost of living crisis, and so on—they fail to provide an alternative to neoliberalism. Rather, they offer a very natural evolution of it, what I will dub a “Fourth Way” neoliberalism.

The “First Way”, in this sense, is characterised by a traditional, post-war boom Keynesian state. It believes economic downturn is due to a lack of demand and consumption, a system within which markets need to be controlled to some extent to correct for their adverse effects and inequality. These are corrected by state spending and public ownership of key enterprises. Therefore, total spending—by a combination of the state, businesses, and individual consumers—is the primary driver of economic life.

The “Second Way” is that of classic neoliberalism, as implemented by Reagan, Thatcher, or in Aotearoa, Douglas and Richardson. This encourages the “competitive order”, one where market competition should drive society, supported by the state through deregulation and ensuring law and order. If there is a sphere of society where markets do not exist, the state’s role is to create them; privatising water, for example.

The well known ideology of Third Way politics is very much neoliberal as well, but on the surface offering a compromise between the previous two. This was championed by Tony Blair in the UK, Bill Clinton in the US, and Helen Clark and John Key in Aotearoa. This maintains all core assumptions and tenets of neoliberalism, but with an additional limited degree of state funding to correct “bugs” (not inherent issues) of the market economy.

The “Fourth Way” I am proposing to describe Opportunity is fundamentally based upon neoliberalism as well. While it remains committed to the market being the primary driver of society, it realises the current political order has resulted in abject failure. However, instead of blaming this on the inevitabilities of a free market economy, it sees the issue as being one of governance. This informs their prescription of technocracy which ignores distribution and democratic input. Their main policy proposals are to clean up red tape, thereby enabling innovation and economic growth, free from the “shackles” of government over-reach which “stifles innovation”. Further, it seeks to redirect capital into more productive ends, proposing a shift from property to finance, delivering “real economic growth”. This is what their 1.75% land tax actually is, an incentive to shift away from property speculation, rather than its touted aim of equalising wealth. Their vision of Aotearoa is to be the “best place to start a business”—a clear neoliberal doctrine. It sees the failure of conventional politics, not as a failure of neoliberalism itself, but of “bad” policy.

Fourth Way neoliberalism, therefore, can be differentiated from other strains of capitalism. It differs from Keynesian economics by not seeing markets as simply one part of the economy, but as the primary component of it, ignoring notions of public ownership, much like both neoliberal paradigms. Indeed, when seeing monopolies forming (the energy sector, to use their example), their solution is to “increase competition”, rather than calling into question market relations from which natural monopolies precipitate. It differs from classical neoliberalism, however, by advocating for the state to foster market success, rather than just the conditions for markets to emerge. It does not condemn neoliberalism as an ideological failure, instead blaming the notion of “divided politics which achieve nothing”. Rather than advocating for state spending nominally for welfare such as in Third Way neoliberalism, it promotes it by supporting markets through technocratic governance, which is then simply assumed to benefit everyone.

When reading through their policy, it immediately reminded me of Abundance in the US. This is an agenda that also very neatly fits under the label of Fourth Way Neoliberalism. It recognises the crisis of contemporary politics and advocates for increasing supply by building more (thereby seeking to solve societal pressures through an “abundance” of services and products) and slashing regulation to supposedly enable innovation. This sounds almost identical to Opportunity Party policy. It treats the deep-seated issues within capitalism as mere glitches in the system, ones solved through “correct” state incentives and policies towards the market. The language used is also almost identical with “pragmatic politics” and “beyond the left-right divide” prominently featured throughout both. It ignores the true incentives of private ownership, which is primarily profit, and in doing so reduces social and economic issues to merely “bad policy” which impedes linear progress. Their conclusion naturally flows from this logic: politics should largely be dismissed in favour of technocratic governance, one in favour of market goals, say, GDP growth and profit.

This Fourth Way ideology (despite how insistent they are that it is not ideological) completely obfuscates critical facets of society. There is no mention of workers, unions, or labour exploitation, instead breaking society down to entrepreneurs and consumers. There is no mention of class interests or corporate lobbying. Historical or contemporary examples are neglected. The concept of public ownership and state-owned enterprises is never mentioned, making clear its neoliberal character. In essence, their approach is simply: clean up regulation + facilitate growth → markets will deliver innovation, which is seen as the ultimate social good. It is also important to note Opportunity’s business background. Their team is consists of numerous people with business backgrounds, including party leader Quilae Wong herself. This informs their business-oriented policy platform.

This Fourth Way prescription of abundance is particularly clear in housing policy, which is best described as YIMBYism (yes in my backyard). Their solution to the housing crisis is to build more to raise supply through the private sector, rather than relatively de-commodified social housing or redistribution. The first issue is that Opportunity claims supply as the primary, and perhaps the only, driver of the housing crisis, rather than the much more fundamental issues of speculation and commodification (both of which are not only unchallenged by Opportunity, but completely ignored). Nowhere are social housing initiatives mentioned, only relaxing building regulations and zoning laws to build more houses. The assertion that the private sector will build inexpensive homes given the “correct” regulations, is deeply flawed. It is more profitable to build unaffordable luxury townhouses next to Te Kaha, which sit vacant on AirBnB between events, rather than building housing for those who need it, relegating the poor to sleeping outside those same empty townhouses. Rather than increased supply depressing prices over time, there will come a point where house prices are too low for the private sector to build profitably. Scarcity is profitable, which is intrinsic to the market economy.

This fetishisation of growth is a key tenet of Opportunity’s technocratic agenda. One of the most egregious examples of this is in bold on their policy page where Rocket Lab is heralded as a shining example of “Kiwi ingenuity”. This perfectly demonstrates the disastrous consequences of conflating innovation with growth, and growth for growth’s sake. GDP growth is not a social good in and of itself, let alone the ultimate goal of society. If growth is celebrated as intrinsically good, it obscures any damage it may cause. Rocket Lab is now under fire for its military co-operation with American Imperialism. The company has contracts and investments with Lockheed Martin, and has signed deals with BlackSky, who provide AI surveillance to Israel. The general assumption that underlies Fourth Way technocratic ideology is that innovation is the ultimate good. However, there is no mention of ownership, innate exploitation under capitalism, distribution, or who growth serves or harms. Another recent example of local innovation is electronic fencing technology, or, rather, shock collars for cows. Given the rest of their policy platform, I am sure they would have no reason to oppose it. It is a prime example of the “ingenuity” they so tout, and any ethical or social concerns, much like Rocket Lab, are ignored. As are the costs to the environment; perpetual growth on a finite planet and environmental sustainability are irreconcilable.

Their welfare reform, whilst perhaps seeming progressive on the surface, is nothing particularly special. They campaign for a “citizen’s income”, or Universal Basic Income (UBI) something which was in fact first promoted by one of the key thinkers of neoliberalism: Milton Friedman. This UBI (up to $370 per week) is less than current unemployment benefits. As it is set to replace most welfare, in a best-case scenario it will simply maintain the status quo under a new system. Further, this does not universally provide for human needs. Housing, nutritious food, healthcare, and suchlike are not proposed to be universally provided. Instead through the UBI, a clearly neoliberal model of commodification, these essentials are to be purchased through the market. Their only released tax policy so far is to implement an annual 1.75% land value tax on urban properties and 0.5% on rural properties. This is hardly addressing the concentration of wealth. Indeed, any mention of a wealth tax is entirely absent from their policy platform. Yet, this is supposed to shift the tax burden from worked income and to wealth. I see it also targeting the average homeowner, perhaps more so than the property magnate. This policy is even more underwhelming than Labour’s pitiful capital gains tax.

The Opportunity Party is not a radical rethinking of politics as they suggest, but a still very much neoliberal response to its own contradictions and failures: a Fourth Way. It reduces critical issues of class conflict, democratic control, ownership, and equality to mere technical oversights or inefficiencies. Rather than analysing social issues as inevitable results of market incentives and pre-existing social relations, there is only “bad policy”. Centrist politics merely see National and Labour, whom, in many respects, are identical, as two political poles with an ideal centre to be followed. That is not the way to move forward, it is precisely the way to maintain the status quo.