This is an ambitious book that covers considerable economic terrain precisely at a time when scholars, politicians, and practitioners are grappling with greater inequality, the politics of austerity, and a looming environmental and energy crisis. Rather than the global financial crisis and the sovereign debt crunch in the European heartland having critically wounded neoliberalism as a rationality of rule, champions of neoliberal capitalism appear to have been emboldened by the twin crises. It is for this reason that Economic Elites, Crises and Democracy makes a timely and important contribution to our understanding of the ascent of neoliberalism and the possibilities for resistance, and ultimately, an alternative world order. As the book is primarily a review of existing economic theory, economic history, and the empirical evidence on the formation of elites and the disintegration of the middle class, it works well as an introductory text that is useful for undergraduates. Seasoned scholars of economic history and/or political economy will be familiar with most of the arguments and the historical narrative reviewed by Andres Solimano. Like other heterodox economists and progressives, he argues that there is a need for a new social contract to create a less crisis-prone world order, greater equality, and greater democratic participation in economic life.

One of the most important arguments made by Solimano is the need to reconsider neoclassical economics as a field of study; one wants to say “field of indoctrination.” He implores us to focus on the real world of business, finance, and the power of economic elites, rather than to remain in a neoclassical fantasy land that has little to do with the actual practices of capitalism: the search for monopoly power, the buying off of politicians, or the revolving door between government and major corporate boards, to name just three dubious practices. Given the century-long prevalence of neoclassical economics and the entrenched interests of academic departments, this is likely a long way away. It is unfortunate that a demonstrably flawed worldview persists and is passed down generation after generation, but institutionalization and path dependence are, regrettably in this instance, difficult to overcome.

A second important argument in the book, and one that will be of interest to readers concerned with assessing alternatives to neoliberal capitalism, is the discussion on economic democracy. Solimano envisions a broad agenda for economic democracy that would increase the participation of workers in the work space and provide equal access to things like credit and education, the public ownership of natural resources, and equal access to organizations like worker-owned factories. To take one example, Solimano discusses The Mondragon Corporation of Spain and notes how workers democratically decided that the ratio of the lowest-paid worker to top managers would be a maximum of 9 to 1. In Anglo corporate culture, the ratio between workers and top managers is now well over 200 to 1, and for some hedge-fund managers, that figure is in the thousands (Tim Di Muzio, The 1% and the Rest of Us: A Political Economy of Dominant Ownership, 2015). While we can surely agree that people have different skills, abilities, talents, levels of education, and energy levels, it is virtually impossible to argue, based on neoclassical theory, that any healthy human being is 100 times or even 1,000 times more “productive” than someone else. Distribution (of income and wealth) follows largely from ownership, and the major difference between ordinary workers and capitalist owners is that the former have only one income stream from their labor, while the latter typically capitalize multiple income streams (Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon Bichler, Capital as Power, 2009).

Yet before we celebrate economic democracy, one discussion for Solimano to consider might be the evidence on the origins of hierarchy and economic growth. Recent research suggests that beyond a certain population threshold, hierarchy in social organization may be inevitable and linked to growth. As Blair Fix suggests “the expansion of hierarchy is necessary for growth” and ultimately drives growth in a carbon-energy-dependent capitalist order (“Putting Power Back into Growth Theory,” Review of Capital as Power 1 [no. 2, 2015]: 1–37.). But while it may be that hierarchy is inevitable in large, complex civilizations, the degree of that hierarchy and the scale of economic rewards from obtaining certain positions within the hierarchy can be limited by a more democratic society. For instance, there is a minimum wage in most countries; maybe there should be a maximum wage as well? After all, such a measure may limit extreme patterns of conspicuous consumption that are helping to destroy the planet for future generations (Tim Di Muzio, “The Plutonomy of the 1%: Dominant Ownership and Conspicuous Consumption in the New Gilded Age,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 43 [no. 2, 2015]: 493–510). In addition, Angus Deaton and Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University found that $75,000 in annual salary is all that is required in order to feel happy about life in the United States.

As comprehensive as this analysis of neoliberal capitalism is, in my view there are a few shortcomings in the work. First, while the book recognizes the link between state debt and austerity politics/neoliberalism, it does not recognize the straightjacket that John Maynard Keynes’s legacy has left for governments. Governments are structurally forced to borrow from private finance when they do not raise enough revenues in taxes, fines, and fees to meet their spending priorities. There is no philosophical or practical reason why this has to be so, only one rooted in a historical power play that led to the creation of the Bank of England in 1694 and gave the power of creating new money as credit to banks (Tim Di Muzio and Richard Robbins, Debt as Power, 2016). It is now fairly well established that banks create new money when they extend loans, yet there is little reason why governments should not be able to issue their own sovereign money interest-free (Richard A. Werner, “Can Banks Individually Create Money out of Nothing? The Theories and the Empirical Evidence,” International Review of Financial Analysis 36 [2014]: 1–19). Thus, one reason why we are seeing the continuation of neoliberalism may be the persistence of public debt and a privatized and capitalized money system. The need to service budgets and finance debt often becomes the reason for privatizations and cutbacks to public spending (the fetishism of fiscal discipline), as Solimano rightly recognizes. But rather than call for a possible debt default or give investors a haircut (as does Solimano), I would argue that we go to the root of the matter and understand how governments being structurally forced to borrow emerged historically, as well as the possible alternatives to privatized and capitalized money creation.

A second shortcoming, and unfortunately all too common in analyses of neoliberal capitalism, is the failure to recognize the tight links among global capitalism, carbon-based energy, and the environment. According to British Petroleum’s 2015 statistical review, there are only 50.7 years’ worth of petroleum left at current production rates. Moreover, should corporations and individuals combust the remaining reserves, runaway climate change will be inevitable. Whether or not these twin problems (peak oil and climate change) can be overcome by greater equality and economic democracy remains to be seen.

These shortcomings aside, Solimano provides his readers with a good overview of elite-dominated capitalism and some potent reasons why we should seek alternatives to the current path down which we are headed.