the definition that fish more or less hides in the middle of his article isn't bad.
the confusion comes in that he moves from a general definition to a series of statements about the ways in which neoliberal ways of thinking have been picked up within universities. in this respect, he's a pretty typical academic who tends to substitute the situation in academic-land for the world in general.
the confusion that arises in the states about the category "liberal" is particular to here and is a trace of the fact (so far as i know) that it is a european name. in the states, this ideology doesn't have a consistent name: "market fundamentalism" "the washington consensus" "market capitalism" "laissez-faire capitalism" all more or less equivalent to it.
the curious feature of the american terminologies is their narrowness--it is as if capitalism was separate from everything else, floating around on it's own out there somewhere. neoliberalism has the advantage of capturing something of capitalism as a mode of production, so includes ideologies and the ways in which they are repeated and/or reproduced and/or performed.
this is of a piece with the ways in which any number of subsidiary questions are framed.
this is an interesting little essay on the dis-framing of the question of deregulation in the us context, what it is, how it works etc.:
http://bostonreview.net/BR34.1/baker.php