Wissenschaft
Refine
Year of publication
- 2015 (19) (remove)
Document Type
- Journal Article (19) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (19)
»What was it that converted capitalism from the cataclysmic failure which it appeared to be in the 1930s into the great engine of prosperity of the post war Western world?« (S. 3) Das ist die Leitfrage von Andrew Shonfields vor 50 Jahren erschienenem Buch über den »modernen Kapitalismus« der 1960er-Jahre. Wie konnte es zu dem »Goldenen Zeitalter« (Eric Hobsbawm), also der fast drei Jahrzehnte andauernden Nachkriegsprosperität kommen, nachdem der Kapitalismus im Zuge der Großen Depression abgewirtschaftet zu haben schien und sich eine breite ordnungspolitische Debatte um alternative Wirtschaftsformen entwickelt hatte?
In seiner Geschichte der jüngsten Vergangenheit Amerikas, die 2011 unter dem Titel »Age of Fracture« erschien, begreift der Historiker Daniel T. Rodgers die wirtschaftlichen Veränderungen, die sich seit den 1970er-Jahren vollzogen, in ideengeschichtlicher Perspektive als »Wiederentdeckung des Marktes«. Paradoxerweise sei die Idee und Rhetorik des Marktes, als eines abstrakten und dekontextualisierten Prinzips, das auf eine Vielzahl menschlicher Lebensbereiche angewendet werden könne, gerade zu dem Zeitpunkt populär geworden, als allenthalben Marktversagen zu beobachten gewesen sei.[1] Die entscheidende Veränderung der letzten Jahrzehnte, die sich im Bereich der akademischen Wirtschaftswissenschaften vollzogen habe, fasst Rodgers als »an effort to turn away from macroeconomics’ aggregate categories and try to rethink economics altogether from microeconomic principles outward«.[2] Mit der Erklärung makroökonomischer Phänomene auf der Basis mikroökonomischen Verhaltens sei zugleich versucht worden, immer weitere Gesellschaftsbereiche über die Prinzipien individueller Nutzenmaximierung zu erklären.
The newly emerging historical scholarship on the era ›after the boom‹, on the marketization of societies in the wake of the neoliberal political reforms, deregulation, and privatization starting in the 1970s, has emphasized this threshold as an epochal break that was driven by large-scale structural shifts in the global economy, in social relations, and in cultural identities. This new accentuation of the economic and social transformation has, for good reason, eclipsed older historical traditions that focused on events, discourses, specific interests, and individual actors. The marketization of social relations is thus often considered to be the result of processes beyond the reach and scope of purposeful actors that promoted specific societal changes. While this historical focus is quite right in denying independent causal status to specific agents and the self-aggrandizement of vain leaders and their intellectual entourage, it tends to obscure the historical genesis of ideas and concepts that later became critical components of political leadership, and the specific constellations of interests, knowledge and actors that did prefigure and originally promote the marketization of economic and political institutions.
Marketization is a broad term with a wide range of meanings. It encompasses measures of deregulation and privatization as well as the perceived increase of an ›economic‹ logic in social relationships. For historical purposes, the term should not be narrowly defined, and nor should the concept of marketization be used in an ahistorical manner detached from contemporary usage. However, there are two questions which the historical analysis of marketization needs to address. First, what is the conceptual understanding of the market mechanism to which the term marketization is linked? Second, what is the relationship between marketization and economic theory?
Theory matters. Most historians would probably agree with this postulate, in the sense that theories from disciplines such as sociology, economics or psychology can sharpen historical analyses of any topic (though many of them may prefer quite pragmatic, common-sense approaches in their own empirical studies). But when it comes to a historical understanding of a phenomenon like marketization, theory does remain an analytical resource – and at the same time turns into a multifaceted object of research. The way we think about markets is highly affected by theorists, and not only by their ideas but also by their effectiveness in making them influential over specific periods of time.
The paper explores representations of economic reform in Czechoslovakia immediately before and after the fall of the centrally planned economy in 1989/90. By what means was the concept of rapid economic transition towards a liberal market setting mediated into the academic and the public sphere? How did it achieve wide public consent? In the first part, the paper analyzes the Czechoslovak academic discussion about perestroika in the late 1980s, where a rapid liberal transition was cast by a distinct group of younger scholars as the only possible way of reforming the socialist economy. Their training was based above all on Paul A. Samuelson’s canonical textbook Economics, which presented this discipline almost as a natural science with universal standards. Immediately after 1989/90, when some of these scholars assumed executive positions within the new Czechoslovak government, what were at first purely economic ways of reasoning merged with certain images of the national past, creating a mixture of liberal economic knowledge and national exceptionalism.