One criticism of neoliberalism is that because it has a tendency to boil down all human action into deliberate, rational calculations, it may neglect to account for a number things that aren't easily quantifiable. In other words, neoliberalism doesn't account for "partitives" like cultural ideologies, morals, sentiments. When neoliberalism doesn't account for such things, it fails to accurately describe human behavior -- let alone give us a guide for our future actions.
For example, when making an "investment" in marriage (a la Gary Baker), how does one weigh the risks and potential payoffs of the special emotional status marriage has in our culture, as opposed to the material, measurable rewards?
But its blindness can also be a good thing, allowing us to exclude from our calculations cultural phenomena that would otherwise have a pernicious influence on those calculations. For example, to the extent that things like racism improperly enhance criminal punishments, a "neoliberal" understanding of crime may lead us to more equitable arrangements -- so long as we stick to the rules. If we can understand crime not as some sort of moral corruption, but in neoliberalism's utilitarian light, as a cold calculation of payoff and risk, we can eliminate from our legal judgments the kind of mushy moral stigma wherein things like racism can hide.
One can see something like this going on in financial crime vs. drug crime. Our legal system seems to consider financial crimes (insider trading, securities fraud, etc etc) more as "rational" decisions that just happen to have unfortunate side effects (that we often do not measure accurately or sufficiently account for -- but that's another point altogether). So the sentences are shorter (although the fancy lawyers the perps can afford do tend to help out). On the other hand, we load up drug crimes with a morass of sticky moral characteristics like irresponsibility, racism, fear, etc. But if we looked at drug crime more like we look at financial crime, perhaps our prison populations would dwindle a bit.
At the end of the day, then, perhaps it's not that a neoliberal understanding is always terrible; it can be a useful way to keep us honest when we go about fulfilling our stated intentions. If we mean crime to be X, a neoliberal calculation can make sure Y doesn't enter the picture surreptitiously.
I'd note here that Schumpeter makes a similar - if broader- point in his Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. It is capitalistic (rationalistic) values that engendered things like an inclination for social welfare and feminism. Capitalism's emphasis on hard numbers, on understanding life through the costs and revenues of a balance sheet, caused us to discount our more "mystical," traditional ideologies, to use ruthless utilitarianism to undermine our cultural justifications for hierarchical class structures.
The problem is, if we should/want to have Y enter the picture, neoliberalism (and capitalistic rationality, in Schumpeter's schematic) stands on much weaker ground. It's at this point we need to pick up a few essays and novels and let that squishier stuff in.
In other words, we can, in certain situations, turn neoliberalism's inherent lack of robustness into a benefit. Just, like any other sword, is has a double-edge. Which edge appears sharper -- it's a matter of opinion and its historical application.
