By Andrew Paul Klein

Abstract

This paper examines the claim that the market has replaced God as the source of authority that cannot be questioned in neoliberal governance. It finds that the market functions as a sacralised authority: presented as natural, omniscient, self-correcting, and beyond political contestation, while its will is interpreted by a technocratic priesthood — economists, central bankers, regulators, and consultants — who adjudicate within the faith. The paper tests the claim that this authority is unprecedented in world history and finds it requires qualification: divine right and other absolutist systems also claimed unquestionable authority, but the market’s authority is distinctive in presenting itself as secular, rational, and natural rather than transcendent. The paper then examines the empirical record: the promises of neoliberal theory (growth, efficiency, freedom, trickle-down) against the documented outcomes (slower growth, rising inequality, financial crises, social fragmentation). It concludes that the doctrine is protected from evidence while citizens absorb the consequences, and that the “bandaids” of electoral politics function to preserve the mythology rather than address the harm.

1. Introduction: The Unquestionable Authority

There is a question that rarely gets asked in contemporary political economy. It is not “what should the market do?” or “how should we regulate the market?” It is a more fundamental question: by what authority does the market command obedience?

The market is presented as a natural phenomenon. Like gravity or the weather, it is said to operate by laws that are not of our making and cannot be repealed. To question the market is to question reality. To intervene in the market is to interfere with nature. The market is not a political choice. It is a fact.

This paper examines that claim. It argues that the market’s authority is not natural but constructed, and that it is constructed in a form that is functionally analogous to religious authority: unquestionable, mediated by interpreters, and resistant to disconfirmation. It examines the thesis that the market has replaced God as the source of authority that cannot be questioned, and that the technocrat has replaced the priest as the interpreter of its will.

The paper proceeds in seven sections. Section 2 establishes the market-as-God thesis. Section 3 establishes the technocrat-as-priest thesis. Section 4 tests the claim of unprecedented authority. Section 5 examines the performative construction of the market. Section 6 documents the empirical record of neoliberal performance. Section 7 examines the “bandaids” — the electoral politics that preserves the mythology. Section 8 draws structural conclusions.

2. The Market as God: Sacralised Authority

2.1 The Thesis

The claim that the market functions as a god is not a metaphor invented for rhetorical effect. It is a thesis advanced in the academic literature.

Harvey Cox, in The Market as God (2016), argues that “the Market has deified itself” and that “the way the world economy operates is neither natural nor inevitable but shaped by a global system of values and symbols that can be best understood as a religion”. Cox describes the market as “omniscient” in the eyes of its acolytes and notes that even after the 2008 crisis “revealed the market’s fallibility,” people continue to have faith in “the market as a self-correcting deity that eventually will restore order“.

Luca Mavelli, in Neoliberalism as Religion (2020), advances a more precise claim. He argues that “the power of neoliberalism stems from being a rationality of government that continuously evokes religious meanings and significations” and that “neoliberalism displaces and redraws the boundary between secular and religious and appropriates an aura of sacredness while concealing itself behind an authoritative secular rational façade”.

The structural features are consistent. The market is presented as:

· Omniscient: It knows the correct price of everything.

· Omnipotent: It can solve any problem if left alone.

· Beneficent: It turns private vice into public virtue (the “invisible hand”).

· Self-correcting: It will restore equilibrium after any disturbance.

· Beyond question: To challenge it is to challenge reality itself.

2.2 The Market Replaces God as the Other

The most direct formulation is found in A God We Can Believe In. The author argues that “capitalism simultaneously erects a new form of divinity, one even more tyrannical than the old form. The new god is the market, and unlike the omnipotent and omniscient God of the monotheistic traditions, the market doesn’t make its tyranny clear. It never proclaims itself to be a jealous god in the way that Yahweh does. It doesn’t appear to restrain freedom, as God does, but rather to foster it. The free market replaces God and acts as the Other, as a social authority”.

That is the precise formulation. The market is not merely an economic mechanism. It is the Other — the external authority to which the subject relates, before which the subject is accountable, and by which the subject is judged.

2.3 The Sacralisation of the Market

The sacralisation operates through language. The market is described in terms that are properly theological:

· “The wisdom of the market” — the market knows better than any individual.

· “Market forces” — impersonal powers that cannot be resisted.

· “The discipline of the market” — the market punishes deviation.

· “Market confidence” — the market’s approval is required for any action.

· “The market will punish” — the market is the ultimate judge.

Each of these phrases performs the same function. It removes the market from the realm of human agency and places it in the realm of the sacred. The market is not something we do. It is something that happens to us. And our proper response is submission.

Status: Established for the thesis and the mechanism. Inference for the structural function.

3. The Technocrat as Priest: The Interpreter of the Market’s Will

3.1 The Pastoral Function

If the market is the god, who interprets its will?

Michel Foucault’s analysis of pastoral power provides the framework. Pastoral power is a form of power that “moves beyond laws and punishment and functions by directing human behaviour through knowledge and guidance of the inner self”. It is concerned with the salvation of the individual soul — or, in its secularised form, with the achievement of material success.

The technocrat performs this function. The economist, the central banker, the regulator, the consultant — each claims the authority to interpret the market’s requirements and to guide the subject toward compliance.

The neoliberal subject is homo oeconomicus — not merely a rational agent, but “a believer, in the free market and its mechanisms, who embarks on forms of ‘spiritual’ growth to achieve their salvation, i.e. success in the competitive order“. The role of the pastor is “to drive towards successful self-entrepreneurship which leads to economic success and thus salvation”.

3.2 The Technocratic Priesthood

The interpreters of the market’s will are not a formal clergy, but they function as one.

· Central bankers interpret the market’s requirements for interest rates and monetary policy. Their pronouncements are treated as authoritative. To challenge them is to invite “market punishment.”

· Economists interpret the market’s laws. Their models are treated as descriptions of reality, not as constructed frameworks. Their forecasts are treated as predictions, not as guesses.

· Regulators interpret the market’s requirements for competition, stability, and fairness. Their judgments are informed by the doctrine.

· Consultants interpret the market’s requirements for the state itself. They produce the reports that legitimate policy choices.

· The IMF and World Bank interpret the market’s requirements for developing countries. Their structural adjustment programmes are the encyclicals of the faith.

Each of these actors operates within the faith. They do not question the market’s authority. They interpret its will.

3.3 The Adjudication Problem

The critical point is this: every adjudication mechanism is inside the frame.

The regulator believes the market is efficient. The judge believes the contract is sacred. The minister believes the deficit must be cut. The central banker believes inflation must be controlled. Each is a believer, and each adjudicates within the faith.

This is the self-reinforcing structure. The doctrine shapes who is appointed, who is promoted, who is listened to. It shapes the questions that can be asked. And it shapes the answers that are acceptable.

Status: Established for the pastoral power framework and the technocratic function. Inference for the adjudication problem.

4. The Claim of Unprecedented Authority: A Qualification

The claim that the market has been given “a level of authority that has no precedents in world history” requires qualification.

4.1 The Historical Precedents

There are precedents for unquestionable authority. They include:

· Divine right of kings: The monarch rules by the will of God. God is not available for cross-examination. The king’s interpretation of God’s will is final.

· The Mandate of Heaven: The Chinese emperor rules by cosmic mandate. The mandate is interpreted by the emperor and his scholars. To question it is to question the order of the cosmos.

· Pharaonic divinity: The Pharaoh is a god. His word is law. There is no appeal.

· Papal supremacy: The pope is the vicar of Christ. His interpretation of doctrine is binding. There is no higher earthly authority.

These systems also claimed unquestionable authority. The claim of “no precedents” is too strong.

4.2 The Distinctive Features

However, the market’s authority has distinctive features that differentiate it from the historical precedents.

It is presented as secular, not transcendent. Divine right appeals to God. The market appeals to nature. It is presented as a description of reality, not as a revelation. This makes it harder to challenge, because to challenge it is to appear irrational.

It is presented as liberating, not restraining. The god of divine right is a jealous god. The market presents itself as the realm of freedom, choice, and individual autonomy. It does not demand obedience. It offers opportunity.

It is universal, not particular. Divine right was particular to a monarch and a people. The market claims universal validity. It applies everywhere, to everyone, and its laws are the same everywhere.

It is self-legitimating. Divine right required the church to legitimate it. The market requires no external legitimation. It is the source of its own authority.

4.3 The Accurate Formulation

The accurate formulation is not that the market’s authority is unprecedented. It is that the market’s authority is distinctive — it combines the unquestionability of divine right with the appearance of secular rationality, and it presents itself as liberating while functioning as a system of discipline.

Status: The claim of “no precedents” is not established. The claim of distinctive features is established. Inference for the structural function.

5. The Performative Construction of the Market

5.1 Economics Performs the Economy

The market is not a natural phenomenon. It is a constructed one. And the construction is performed by the discipline of economics.

Michel Callon states the thesis directly: “economics, in the broad sense of the term, performs, shapes and formats the economy, rather than observing how it functions“. Economic actors “use these theories when interacting with the world, thereby shaping it according to the theories. In this way they are performing the economy, making the real economy more like the theories of it”.

This is performative construction. The theory does not describe a pre-existing reality. It brings that reality into being. The market that neoliberalism describes is not a discovery. It is a product of the theory.

5.2 The Disembedded Market

Karl Polanyi provided the historical framework. In The Great Transformation (1944), Polanyi argued that pre-industrial economies were embedded in social relations. The economy was subordinate to society. The market was not a separate sphere. It was part of the community.

The neoliberal project is the disembedding of the market from social relations. It treats land, labour, and money as fictitious commodities — things that were not produced to be sold on a market but are treated as if they were. The disembedded market is not a natural development. It is a historical reversal accomplished at great human cost.

5.3 The Manufactured Consensus

If the market is constructed, then the consensus around it is also constructed. The construction is performed through:

· Think tanks funded by the wealthy that produce the intellectual justification.

· Academic departments shaped by funding and hiring decisions.

· Media that presents the market as natural and its critics as irrational.

· The revolving door between government, finance, and the consultancy sector.

The consensus is not a discovery of truth. It is a manufactured consent. And the manufacturing is the mechanism by which the doctrine is protected from evidence.

Status: Established for the performativity thesis and the Polanyi framework. Inference for the manufactured consensus.

6. The Empirical Record: Promises and Outcomes

The neoliberal theory made promises. The empirical record tests them.

6.1 The Promises

· Growth: The market will deliver prosperity.

· Efficiency: The market will allocate resources optimally.

· Freedom: The market will liberate individuals.

· Trickle-down: The wealth of the rich will benefit the poor.

6.2 The Outcomes

Growth has been slower, not faster. The global economy grew at approximately 4.9% per year from 1950 to 1973 — the regulated post-war period. From 1980 to 2019 — the neoliberal period — it grew at approximately 3.2% (World Bank data).

Inequality has increased dramatically. From 1975 to 2023, approximately $79 trillion in wealth was transferred from the bottom 90% of Americans to the richest 1%, according to RAND research cited in The London Economic. The top 1% wealth share in the US returned to approximately 32%, comparable to the Gilded Age. The richest 1% captured 63% of new wealth created since 2020 (Oxfam).

Poverty persists. 3.7 million Australians live below the poverty line. 757,000 children live in poverty. 122,000 people are homeless (ACOSS, 2025).

Financial crises have been frequent and severe. 1987, 1997, 2000, 2008. The 2008 crisis cost the global economy an estimated $10 trillion.

Social mobility has declined. The promises of meritocracy and increased opportunity through education “are shown to be false during a time when trickle-down economics — namely, deregulation and austerity in public policies — is driving a rise in inequality, with the benefits of economic growth being collected by the wealthy elite”.

The Washington Consensus failed. The agenda “failed and its negative economic [consequences]… widened the gap between rich and less developed countries”.

6.3 The Resistance to Evidence

The pattern is consistent. When the promises fail, the theory is not abandoned. It is adjusted.

· The crisis was caused by external factors (the government, the unions, the “greed” of individuals).

· The reforms did not go far enough.

· The problem is implementation, not the theory.

· The next round of reforms will deliver the promise.

This is the structure of a belief system that cannot be falsified. It is not a scientific theory. It is a faith.

Status: Established for the outcomes. Inference for the resistance to evidence.

7. The Bandaids: Electoral Politics and the Preservation of the Myth

The’ individual ‘impacted asks whether the response to harm has been “bandaids created for political purposes — to get votes and electoral success — while most efforts revolve around the protection of the mythology of the market.”

The evidence supports this formulation.

7.1 The Bandaid Function

The bandaids include:

· One-off payments to households during cost-of-living crises.

· Inquiry and review processes that produce reports without binding recommendations.

· Royal Commissions that document harm without compelling remedy.

· Targeted interventions that address symptoms without addressing causes.

Each performs the same function. It acknowledges the harm while protecting the structure that produces it. It says: we understand your pain, and we are doing something. It does not say: the doctrine is wrong.

7.2 The Electoral Logic

The bandaids are politically rational. They respond to the grievances that the doctrine produces. But they do not change the doctrine. They manage the consequences while preserving the architecture.

The evidence is in the outcomes. If the bandaids were remedies, the harm would diminish. The harm is not diminishing. Inequality is rising. Poverty persists. Homelessness is increasing. The bandaids are not working because they are not designed to work. They are designed to hold the line until the next electoral cycle.

7.3 The Protection of the Mythology

The most significant effort is not the bandaids. It is the protection of the mythology.

The market must remain unquestionable. Its failures must be attributed to external factors. Its critics must be delegitimised. The doctrine must be reproduced in the education system, the media, and the bureaucracy.

This is the function of the “serious people” — the technocrats, the economists, the central bankers — who adjudicate within the faith. They say: we understand the pain, and the solution is more market, not less. They protect the mythology while managing the consequences.

Status: Established for the bandaid function. Inference for the electoral logic and the protection of the mythology.

8. Conclusion: The Faith and the Citizen

The market has replaced God as the source of authority that cannot be questioned. The technocrat has replaced the priest as the interpreter of its will.

The authority is not unprecedented in the sense of being without historical parallel. Divine right and other absolutist systems also claimed unquestionable authority. But the market’s authority is distinctive: it presents itself as secular, rational, and natural; it presents itself as liberating; it claims universal validity; and it requires no external legitimation.

The market is not a natural phenomenon. It is a constructed one. It is performed by the discipline of economics, disembedded from social relations by the neoliberal project, and protected from evidence by a manufactured consensus.

The empirical record is clear. The promises did not materialise. Growth was slower. Inequality rose. Crises recurred. The benefits went to the few. The costs were borne by the many.

But the doctrine is not abandoned. It is protected. The bandaids manage the consequences while preserving the mythology. The citizens are told that the problem is not the theory. It is them.

The record is kept. The mythology is named. And the faith is still being preached.

Claim- Status -Summary

# -Claim- Status

1- The market functions as a sacralised authority- Established

2 -Neoliberalism appropriates an aura of sacredness -Established

3- The free market replaces God as the Other -Established

4 -Technocrats perform a pastoral function Established

5 -The market’s authority is unprecedented in world history -Not established (requires qualification)

6 -The market’s authority is distinctive in presenting itself as secular -Established

7 -Economics is performative — it shapes the economy- Established

8- The market is disembedded from social relations- Established

9- The consensus around the market is manufactured- Inference

10- Neoliberal promises did not materialise- Established

11- $79 trillion transferred from bottom 90% to top 1% (US, 1975–2023) -Established

12- The doctrine resists disconfirming evidence -Inference

13- Bandaids manage consequences while protecting the structure -Inference

14- The doctrine is protected by a technocratic priesthood- Inference

15- The market is a belief system, not a scientific discovery -Inference

References

1. Cox, H. (2016). The Market as God. Harvard University Press.

2. Mavelli, L. (2020). Neoliberalism as Religion: Sacralization of the Market and Post-truth Politics. International Political Sociology, 14(1), 57–76.

3. A God We Can Believe In. (n.d.). In Capitalism and Religion. De Gruyter.

4. Callon, M. (1998). The Laws of the Markets. Blackwell.

5. Aspers, P. (n.d.). Performativity, Neoclassical Theory and Economic Sociology. d-nb.info.

6. Polanyi, K. (1944). The Great Transformation. Farrar & Rinehart.

7. Hann, C., & Hart, K. (2009). Necessity or contingency: Mutuality and market. In Market and Society. Cambridge University Press.

8. Farina, F. (2025). The Rise of Inequality and the Fall of Social Mobility. Palgrave Macmillan.

9. One of the principle aspects of a neoliberal political vision. (n.d.). University of Malta.

10. Piketty, T., Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (n.d.). World Inequality Database.

11. Trickle up economics in the United States. (2026, February 18). The London Economic.

12. ACOSS. (2025). Poverty in Australia 2025.

13. The Salvation Army. (2026). Record Homelessness Should Shock Australia into Action.

14. Oxfam International. (2023). Survival of the Richest.

15. World Bank. (2020). World Development Indicators.

16. Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.

17. Mirowski, P. (2013). Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste. Verso.

18. Slobodian, Q. (2018). Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism. Harvard University Press.

19. Klein, N. (2007). The Shock Doctrine. Metropolitan Books.

20. Foucault, M. (2007). Security, Territory, Population. Palgrave Macmillan.

Method notes- Claims are classified throughout as Established, Inference, or Speculation. The paper examines the thesis that the market has replaced God as an unquestionable source of authority in neoliberal governance, and that the technocrat has replaced the priest as the interpreter of its will. It tests the claim that this authority is unprecedented in world history, and it examines the empirical record of neoliberal performance against its promises. It does not argue that neoliberalism is a religion. It argues that the structure of its authority — unquestionable, mediated by interpreters, resistant to disconfirmation — is functionally analogous to religious authority.

Andrew Paul Klein is a writer and analyst based in Boronia, Victoria. He accepts funding from no one.