The return to the market at its start is expressed in neoliberal enthusiasm for what is often seen as escaping the trammels of government bureaucracy. At its beginning, it is understood as returning to the free market. The paradox is that it uses state power to withdraw the state from involvement in the market. Yet banks are clearly too big to fail, so the taxpayer must bail them out.
Another exception is defence spending, but there are a whole range of state involvements like investing in infrastructure, in railways, motorways, Major terminal stations like Victoria, London or Westbahnhof, Vienna and the linking underground and tram/bus lines, some privately owned. How are these supposed to be kept financially separate to avoid major hidden (and often long-term) subsidisation by taxpayers? The same goes for welfare, elderly care and education.
Most blatant of all is the way governments create rules that local authorities must follow to obtain benefits. I will look at some of these systems of rules local authorities and private interests are expected to follow, as well as the financial juggling that are used to either appear to follow the rules or keep eligible for state subsidies and still extract profit from the enterprise.