Both became a thing roughly around the same time, which is the 1970s, but I'd say Neoconservatism is more of a US thing (although one could argue there were Canadian and European neocons) that was about hawkish foreign policy and maintaining democracy abroad with a kind of "Pax Americana." Many of these people were former liberals and even some Trots who were not anti-war. George W. Bush and the Iraq War were the culmination of this movement.
Neoliberalism is more of an economic push to not only roll back all social democratic reforms in the wake of a weakening socialist bloc, but to have the state directly subsidize the private sector instead with "public-private partnerships" among other things. The ideological justification of this was, in the US, basically made by libertarian, Koch-brother-funded think tanks and incursion into almost every economics department in the country until even high schoolers are getting taught who Freidrich Hayek is and are forced to read Ayn Rand.
The ideological justification of this was, in the US, basically made by libertarian, Koch-brother-funded think tanks and incursion into almost every economics department in the country until even high schoolers are getting taught who Freidrich Hayek is and are forced to read Ayn Rand.
Yep. Literally every econ professor I had in undergrad was a right-wing libertarian. It wasn't until after I graduated that I discovered that our econ department was funded by the Koch brothers and they actually had a contract with our school that gave them influence in hiring. I had lectures in environmental economics where we were told that we should simply ignore the negative externalities from climate change because addressing the issue would result in excessive opportunity costs. We even had professor-led Ayn Rand book clubs.
The Koch brothers through their foundations and think tanks heavily promote the Chicago school variant of neoliberal economics through their funding of academic institutions across the country. A comprehensive list of these Koch-funded schools: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Koch_Universities#Koch_University_Spending_and_Academic_Freedom
Neoliberalism is an economic framework, and Neoconservatism is about favoring an interventionist foreign policy.
So despite similar naming conventions, absolutely not mutually exclusive.
Not at all. The Bush administration had a Neocon foreign policy and followed Neolib economics.
Neoliberalism is an arrangement of capitalism; neoconservative is a political position created as a reaction to the New Left policies of candidates like George McGovern that fully rejects social democracy.
they are not opposites nor contradictory. unfortunate naming convention, i think it is common to think neoliberal refers to a new form of left-liberalism (e.g. the Democrats) when it really refers to an economic tradition
The neo prefix in those words are there for different reasons. Neoliberalism is new (neo) because it it's a new kind of liberalism that came to be after Keynseianism replaced liberalism for a few decades; it's the ideology that's new. The newness of neoconservatism refers not exactly to the ideology, but to the people to whom it belonged; the original neocons were often former leftists, usually of Trotskyite varieties, who were becoming conservative hawks; i.e., they were new to conservatism. Most current neocons aren't former trots anymore, in fact, most neocons haven't been former trots since the 70s and 80s, which was before the foreign policy ideology really became institutionalized big time (peaking with the Bush II Administration, but the Reagan and especially Bush I Administrations were trial runs and the Obama/Trump administrations continued it and Biden appears to be as well) but the name stuck.
Names are stupid.
