"There are at least three, oftentimes overlapping, ways in which we can study neoliberalism: by tracing its intellectual history and the formation of its ideas, by conceiving it as an epistemological program, or by studying it as a product of the structural contradictions of globalized capitalism. In trying to make sense of neoliberalism’s longevity, Plehwe, Slobodian, and Mirowski opt for the first approach, which allows for conclusions regarding the second. And they have ‘no quarrel with’ the third way [...] the book’s central claim: neoliberalism has been able to survive precisely because of its malleability, not least due to how it, almost parasitically, encroaches upon competing worldviews. The book’s object, therefore, is to make these entanglements visible, by observing the historical development and progression of neoliberal ideas, while also ‘tracking the linkages of elements of those worldviews to competing ideologies, or the mixed morphologies of both conservative-neoliberal and progressive-neoliberal perspectives’ (p. 11). [...] Overall, Nine Lives provides a telling and accessible history of the formation of key neoliberal (policy) positions and, therefore, of how neoliberals mobilized the market discursively as a seemingly impartial communication mechanism so as to not merely produce knowledge, but rather to produce the ideological precepts of the ‘right’ kind of knowledge. At the same time, by pointing to the intellectual struggles among neoliberals, and situating them in historical context, the contributions of this volume are careful to point to the fact that neoliberalism is far from homogeneous and consensual – despite the fact that it managed to popularly position itself as such, even within the ranks of its critics. This volume therefore deserves to be read alongside other standard works of the intellectual history of neoliberalism [...] By including understudied figures of neoliberal history, the empirical strength of ‘Nine Lives’ lies in adding to the corpus of either forgotten, or previously invisible, historical actor-network configurations. However, it would have been much welcome if the volume included marginalized neoliberals of the Global South, which continue to be understudied [...] If there is one critique to be made, it is about the relationship between neoliberalism and the ascendance of right-wing populism globally. There are some intriguing questions tacitly lurking in the volume [...] there is surprisingly little that follows regarding the conditions of possibility for fusing neoliberal thought with anti-democratic, authoritarian, at times even racist, positions and state-institutional arrangements. This would have been possible in a conclusion chapter, which is, unfortunately, missing."