Politik
Refine
Year of publication
- 2015 (29) (remove)
Document Type
- Journal Article (29)
Has Fulltext
- yes (29)
»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?
Milton Friedman hung up the phone in disgruntlement. The most influential economist of the postwar era had just called three different banks, one in Chicago and then two in New York, in order to initiate a financial transaction. He wanted to sell short $300,000 in pound sterling. Short selling is a technique for speculating on falling prices. Initially, speculators can only speculate on rising prices: they buy something and hope that it gains value, so that they can sell it at a profit. If the price for this asset goes down instead, the speculator incurs a loss when he resells it. So in order to profit from falling prices, speculators need to sell first and buy later – which is indeed possible if what is sold now is in fact only to be delivered a few weeks later. If the speculator is right and prices fall in the interim, he can buy cheap just before delivery is due and thus profit from having already sold what, at the time, he had not yet owned.
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.
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.
Nach 1989 feierten Kommentatoren den finalen Triumph des kapitalistischen Marktes über seinen letzten Widersacher, den sozialistischen Plan. Aber die krisenhaften Wirtschaftsumbauten in der ehemaligen DDR und in Ost(mittel)europa standen noch bevor. Was meinten Ökonomen, Wirtschaftspolitiker oder Manager dieser Umbauprozesse eigentlich, wenn sie von Märkten sprachen? Der Beitrag richtet den Blick auf Vorstellungen im Kontext der 1990 gegründeten Treuhandanstalt und fokussiert Akteure, die in der Rückschau oft als marktgläubige »Exekutoren« des westlichen »Neoliberalismus« auf einem östlichen »Experimentierfeld« kritisiert werden. Deren Marktkonzeptionen fielen keineswegs einheitlich aus; sie konnten einen idealen Endzustand oder aber einen radikalen Prozess meinen. Auch der Glaube an die Gestaltbarkeit von Marktmechanismen erwies sich als wechselhaft. Eine Analyse zeitgenössischer Experteninterviews, die 1992/93 im Auftrag der Treuhand geführt wurden und jetzt wiederentdeckt werden konnten, offenbart schließlich ein breites Spektrum an individuellen Marktdeutungen aus der Alltagspraxis der ostdeutschen Transformation.
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.
Der Ruf des Marktes ist lädiert. Die internationalen Finanzkrisen der letzten Jahre haben Ängste vor einem offenbar politisch unbeherrschbaren, globalisierten Hochgeschwindigkeits-Kapitalismus geschürt; zugleich verweist das seit geraumer Zeit gewachsene Unbehagen an einer anhaltenden »Ökonomisierung« von Arbeitsbeziehungen, sozialen Sicherungs- oder Bildungssystemen auf die Schattenseiten eines hochflexiblen Informations- und Konsumgüterangebots, auf das allerdings kaum jemand verzichten möchte. Wie plausibel solche Zeitdiagnosen auch immer erscheinen mögen, sie dürften immerhin das gewachsene Interesse einer Zeitgeschichtsschreibung, die sich wieder stärker der »Problemgeschichte« oder den »Anfängen der Gegenwart« widmet, an jenen ökonomischen Faktoren miterklären, die in der kulturhistorischen Hochkonjunktur der 1990er-Jahre in den Hintergrund gerückt waren.