Journal of Law and Political Economy

Conservatives have long argued that progressive government policies tend to backfire (the “perversity thesis”). However, in American political discourse since the 1990s, this argument has been reframed in terms of “ unintended consequences.” The article explores this rhetorical shift by tracing the concept of “unintended consequences” from classical social theory to contemporary public policy debates. It finds that the term was originally associated with the notion of the “invisible hand” of the market, and gradually became aligned with the perversity thesis under the influence of neoconservatism, collective action theories, and Chicago School economics. The article argues that, due to this transformation, the “unintended consequences” rhetoric became especially valuable for neoliberalism, expressing both the efficacy of markets and the perceived failure of the democratic regulatory state. As such, the appeal to “unintended consequences” is revealed as an ideological stance rather than a neutral observation about the effects of progressive reform.