A public policy named post-neoliberalism has emerged against neoliberal policies while they have been questioned as a result of social reactions and economic crisis. Post-neoliberalism is discussed in terms of its character partially blocking, reversing and preserving the structural transformation that is being experienced. This study aims to determine the continuity and rupture between neoliberalism and postneoliberalism. In order to determine the boundaries of neoliberalism we have to return to its origins and inquire the continuity and rupture between pre-neoliberalism and neoliberalism. Why has liberalism needed regeneration in history? First of all, we have to look at the theoretical framework that meant a political rupture from liberalism during pre-neoliberalism. The public policies that marked the 20th century have been nationalization and planning, centralizing and integrating production as the main tools in the transition to socialism. The welfare state and developmental state arised under the influence of these policies in capitalist countries. The transition to neoliberalism in capitalist countries can be concretely traced in the development of industrial policies. The congestions of industrial policies clarify the conditions that have ascertained neoliberal policies. Industry is submitted to the dominance of finance capital. Newly industrializing countries' pursuit for independent development involved nationalization and planning from time to time, but industrial policy mainly consisted of protectionism based on import substitution. During the last quarter of the 20th century, as the industrial policy based upon import substitution fell into crisis, liberalism was reintroduced in an orthodox line. The neoliberal rhetoric rejected protectionism along with all state interventions and even the concept of industrial policy. Actually, under the disguise of abstaining from policy-making, policies of privatization and liberalization were implemented. However the market failures caused by neoliberal policies eventually deepened the crisis. The criticisms of orthodox neoliberal prescription merged under the Washington Consensus opened up a discussion that recalled industrial policy and reinvited the state to regulate competition. Post-neoliberal policies that have been discussed for the last ten years emerged in this context. The criticism of neoliberalism denied nationalization and planning policies that were a political negation of liberalism during pre-neoliberalism. The Post-Washington Consensus confronting the Washington Consensus introduced the so-called second generation reforms. These comprised the preservation of competitiveness through regulative state measures and undertaking social functions to maintain the sustainability of social contradictions. The social reactions arising from the implementation of orthodox neoliberal policies and the pursuit for an alternative policy following the 2007-2008 crisis convened under the postneoliberal agenda. The Latin American countries where the New Left came to power became the field of implementation of the post-neoliberal public policies. The debate on the experiences of these policies reveals the diversification of neoliberalism. This diversity illuminates the aspects by which post-neoliberalism reproduces neoliberalism. Competitiveness is consolidated by being furnished with a social agenda based on conceptualizations such as poverty reduction, participation, autonomy. In conclusion, post-neoliberalism as a public policy does not disengage from neoliberalism but rather serves for its restoration.