At first glance neoliberalism has swept all before it across much of the contemporary world. Even those Nordic countries, such as Sweden and Norway, perhaps most committed to social democracy, have been forced to adopt and adjust to the neoliberal pull. The persuasiveness of neoliberalism is such that, despite its obvious shortcomings and sometimes outrageous failures, it remains difficult to imagine any viable alternative approach, or believe that not so very long ago seemingly sensible governments and publics were able to construct modern social democratic states and to conceive of these as the most effective way of pursuing economic growth, while regulating the worst effects of a free market and ensuring basic freedoms and social and political harmony. The neoliberal zeitgeist has succeeded in establishing deep roots in our minds and our practices, no more so than in the field of public policy. Even where neoliberal governments are forced to intervene to regulate markets, build infrastructure, provide or re-introduce systems of social and economic support or extol the virtues of public services, public spaces and social relationships, they do so without, it seems, undermining the rhetoric of neoliberalism, let alone suggesting that it is failing in more fundamental ways.

In part this is because we live in a liberal-democratic, postsocialist age. Liberal and democratic values now shape politics and public policy making across the contemporary world, at least in principle. Nevertheless, questions linger. Just what constitutes a robust reconciliation of liberal and democratic values, and how do we live up to them in our political and policy practices? How do liberal values of individual freedom and choice relate to social democratic values of equality, cohesion and sustainability? Have liberal-democratic practices become too susceptible to neoliberal incursions distorting and undermining the underlying public and social purposes of democratic government and public policy?

Conflict over values and principles, as well as outcomes, and the scope for their better integration, is at the heart of discussion and debate about public policy. The contributions to this book reflect this complexity and ambition. Authors grapple with a wide range of questions about how to reconcile competing ideas, priorities and viewpoints alongside the interests influencing and shaping public policy making as well as the consequences for social groups and society overall of pursuing competing perspectives.