In her generous and deeply perceptive review of my book, Wendy Brown points out some strengths but also what she considers to be the limitations of the study. And, as in many things, Brown is right—certainly with respect to some of the limitations. In particular, she draws attention to the quite abrupt and also ominous closing lines of the book that raise a lot of questions regarding the current state and future trajectory of an increasingly ordoliberal European Union that might be subject to escalating nationalist contestation from any number of “right-wing populist” movements and parties. More generally, Brown points to the often “underdeveloped” interpretive and critical claims in the study. Furthermore, she detects a narrowing of the scope that takes place over the course of the book; for example, when the ordoliberal praise of traditional morality, which is addressed early on, is never taken up again in the more diagnostic parts of the book or when the broad transatlantic framework of varieties of neoliberal thought gives way to an analysis of “actually existing neoliberalism” with an exclusive focus on contemporary Europe.

I think these are perfectly valid points, so let me try to address them, beginning with the last one. Although a broader transatlantic comparative scope of the analysis of actually existing neoliberalism would have been more desirable in principle, given the restrictions of space, I chose to focus on Europe for two reasons. First, the severity of the string of crises was much more pronounced there, and assuming that neoliberalism thrives on crises, this is the setting where “neoliberal innovation” is most likely to be expected. Second, the unique political form of the Eurozone/European Union turns it into a perfect laboratory for neoliberalism, especially with regard to statehood “after” the nation-state. For someone who is interested in the political theory of neoliberalism and what is distinctive about the neoliberal present, Europe is thus one of the most interesting sites of actually existing neoliberalism to consider.

There is indeed a somewhat ominous ring to the final paragraphs regarding scenarios for the future development of the EU. Let me take this opportunity to clarify that I consider this future development to be, in principle, undetermined. There are alternatives to ordoliberalization. Some are represented by right-wing populist parties (although there is a considerable north–south divide here, Dutch or Swedish populists being staunch supporters of an “ordoliberal” Europe of austerity), while other political forces continue to fight for a more “social democratic” Europe. And although the structural decks are stacked against this latter project of a more social, more democratic European Union that does not revert back into a loose federation of nation-states, I would still consider this a position worth struggling for.

Finally, Brown correctly points to what I would describe as rather modest critical claims that aim not so much at a refutation but rather a problematization of the various tenets of neoliberal political theory. The systematic reason for this is my commitment to a mode of critique that is largely immanent and that I have employed for a combination of reasons. Given the relative dearth of studies that engage critically and in depth with the primary sources of neoliberal political theory, I think it is sufficient as a first step to identify tensions, lacunae, inconsistencies, and blind spots in that theory. I hope that others will take the small holes I tried to poke into this body of thought as a starting point and enlarge them. Moreover, the book was to be about neoliberal theory, first and foremost; I wanted the critique developed in it not to be inherently tied to (for example) Foucaultian or Gramscian assumptions, so the critical points could not be dismissed simply because one disagrees with these assumptions. In other words, I wanted to write a book whose critique would have to be taken seriously not only by those who are already part of neoliberalism’s choir of critics but even by those who tend to have faith in the neoliberal creed.