All too often one reads that countries were victims or passive recipients of a Western-imposed (neo)liberalism at the end of the Cold War. Such diffusionist approaches tend to portray neoliberalism, a term frequently ill-defined and misused, as an exercise in power politics via the hand of Bretton Woods institutions or an all-powerful idea sweeping aside everything before it. In recent years, an inter-disciplinary group of scholars have sought to challenge narratives of a wholesale Westernization in the aftermath of 1989. A branch of this research agenda has since identified local varieties of (neo)liberalism in countries that once belonged to the second and third worlds. These were part of global shifts in economics and economic thought since the 1970s and would influence, to varying degrees, the subsequent path of liberal reforms.

To provide a platform for this new agenda, the research group ‘Peripheral Liberalism’ at the Freie Universität Berlin organized a two-day workshop, funded by the Cluster of Excellence ‘Contestations of the Liberal Script’ (SCRIPTS). Participants were a mix of well-established and young researchers, from institutions in Africa, Asia, the Americas, and Europe, with backgrounds in political science, political economy, area studies, sociology, economics, history, and anthropology.

In his opening remarks, TOBIAS RUPPRECHT (Berlin) proposed the term ‘peripheral liberalism’ to describe the emergence of a liberal script outside the West. This follows a SCRIPTS working paper co-written with two members of the hosting research group ALICE TRINKE (Berlin) and KEVIN AXE (Berlin).1 Peripheral is a structural, social, and political identifier. The (neo)liberals under consideration here perceived their countries as being on the periphery, or semi-periphery, of the world economy. Inspiration for open markets came not only from the West, but also other 'peripheral' countries, often those with comparable political systems. These were intellectual elites, trained in economics or social sciences, and detached from wider society. While some of their ideas on market- and individual rights-based systems informed economic and financial policy, the (neo)liberals themselves were politically side-lined in the transition. In line with the latest research, neoliberalism is understood not as market fundamentalism, but a set of ideas that use the state to create and defend markets from interest groups and democratic access. The goal of the workshop was to test the applicability of ‘peripheral liberalism’ as an analytical concept and contribute to a better understanding of global economic transformations in the last half-century.

The first to speak on a panel dedicated to the late Soviet Union was OLESSIA KIRTCHIK (Paris). She argued that perestroika created demand for and openness towards reform-minded agricultural economists. They sought to re-cast the farmer as a master of the land, a step towards establishing property rights in a socialist economy. ADAM LEEDS (New York), an anthropologist by training, then presented his findings from rigorous study of the early writings of Yegor Gaidar, one of the architects of Russia’s transition to a market economy. He traced Gaidar’s intellectual development, from an academic economist schooled in Soviet industrial institutionalism to a reformist intent on saving the Soviet economy. In his timeline, Gaidar the (neo)liberal appeared only after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Partly in response to new research asking, at least rhetorically, whether the Soviet Union could have taken the Chinese path of gradual reform preserving communist party control, workshop host Rupprecht said Gorbachev had tried to do so but was doomed to fail due to structural differences.

The subsequent panel bridged the collapse of the Soviet Union and foundation of the Russian Federation. IVAN BOLDYREV (Nijmegen) started by reviewing the work of Nobel-prize winning mathematician Leonid Kantorovich and his ambiguous reputation as the father of Soviet (neo-)liberalism for later generations of economists. FRITZ BARTEL (College Station, TX) gave an account of the International Monetary Fund’s first visits to post-Soviet Russia, carrying the narrative forward from his well-received first monograph The Triumph of Broken Promises (2022). Using documents from the international institution’s archives in Washington, DC, Bartel made the case that the IMF advisors, stripped of bargaining power for geopolitical reasons, were little more than pawns in domestic power politics. Last to speak was ILYA MATVEEV, who reflected on the position of so-called system liberals in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. He asserted that their expertise remains valuable, if not always adhered to. Any dreams of a political project were abandoned in the course of the last three decades. Their current predicament was likened to Nazi economics minister Hjalmar Schacht, a one-time collaborator who ended up in a concentration camp.

A pair of presentations on the Baltic Tiger Estonia opened a single session on former Soviet republics. JUHAN SAHAROV (Tartu) summarized his latest research project on agrarian reform in the mid- to late-1980s, expanding on his own work into the services sector. He asked whether John Locke’s ideas on social contracts could be a lens through which to explain economic change and national independence. Workshop co-host Axe also located the roots of the Estonian model, defined as small state neoliberalism, in its reputation as a Soviet economic testbed. Deploying a cute metaphor, Axe said the model pupil became a teacher after independence, exporting ideas on currency reform and flat-tax to other former socialist states. The third and final intervention came from the Georgia’s economy minister in the turbulent 1990s VLADIMER PAPAVA (Tbilisi). Drawing on personal experience, Papava emphasized the importance of the Balcerowicz Plan, Poland’s shock therapy, for post-communist countries.

Two speakers specializing in East and West Africa succeeded in establishing local variants of ‘peripheral liberalism’. SA’EED HUSAINI (Abuja) shared the results of his analysis of party manifestos in democratic post-independence Nigeria. Using methods and models from political science, he observed a convergence towards a ‘nurture capitalist’ orientation, amenable to the liberal script. ALEX PEEPLES (Baltimore, MD) revisited the case of Tanzania, long thought of as a victim of IMF-led structural adjustment. He highlighted that insiders with expertise in public finance and development aid, areas in exchange with the outside world, led the process of dismantling African socialism in one of its symbolic heartlands.

A panel on Latin America demonstrated how in this region of the Global South local businesspeople were mobilized to take on doctrines of state interventionism. In the earliest example discussed at the workshop, JOSÉ ANTONIO GALINDO DOMINGUEZ (Mexico City) tracked how the Inter-American Council of Commerce and Production, a business organization, promoted liberal economic thought in the 1940s to mixed success, much like transnational networks in the Global North. MAXIMILIANO JARA BARRERA (Berlin), the newest member the team hosting the workshop, focused on Chilean industrialist, philanthropist, and politician Pedro Ibáñez Ojeda and his personal mission to host a Mont Pelerin Society meeting in his homeland in 1981. The implication is that the notorious Chicago Boys, though complementary actors, were not the only source of neoliberalism in Chile.

The second day of the workshop began with a panel on market reforms in China and Southeast Asia. TUONG VU (Eugene, OR) and PHAM THI HONG HA (Hanoi) brought to life a group of peripheral liberals in Vietnam. Through archival research and interviews, the pair recovered an underexplored inspiration for liberalization in the mid- to late-1980s: the defeated southern Republic of Vietnam and its former officials who remained in the country after unification. Their finding supports the workshop’s contention that national or local paths towards a liberal script need to be taken seriously. The next two contributions came from Chinese public intellectual WANG HUI (Beijing), appearing digitally, and one of the leading economists working on China BARRY NAUGHTON (San Diego, CA). Hui explored China’s past, present, and future through the lens of ‘neoliberalism’, a concept he made his name fiercely resisting as the leading light of the country’s New Left in the 1990s. Naughton was more skeptical, believing that market liberalization was characterized by pragmatism and a trial-and-error approach, rather than strict ideology.

In a panel with an exclusive focus on China, co-host Trinkle highlighted the impact of Hungary, a theme among several participants, on Chinese reform intellectuals. Her story was told through the figure of Su Shaozhi, one of the thinkers behind ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’, whose vision of a liberal script drew on the Eastern European example. For YATING ZHANG (Berlin), the grey zone between legal private business and economic crimes in the early reform era exhibited some of the familiar tendencies in the so-called China model, namely market capitalism guided by one-party rule. Following in the footsteps of recent work, FEDERICO PACHETTI (Budapest) foregrounded the World Bank’s first report on China published in 1983.2 He concluded that the institution exhibited exceptional commitment and ideological flexibility towards China when compared to other member countries.

A double session on Central and Eastern Europe began with two virtual talks from PÉTER VÁMOS (Budapest) and IA ERADZE (Tbilisi). The former interrogated the late János Kornai’s claim to have created a Frankenstein in modern China, ultimately finding that the Hungarian economist exaggerated his influence.3 The latter argued that central banks were a source of neoliberalism in transition states, with reference to post-Soviet Georgia. Two well-paired contributions from BENEDEK PÁL (Vienna) and LUBOŠ STUDENÝ (Prague) surveyed reform thinking in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, respectively. Pál identified three camps: liberal democratic, neoliberal, and national-populist, emerging in the 1980s, partly in exchange with Polish intellectuals. Studený’s talk had a greater focus on economic reform, tracking the gradual radicalization of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences’ Forecasting Institute. In both cases, the horizons of the reformers, and the differences between them, opened up after the collapse of state socialism. The honor of closing the conference was given to VENELIN GANEV (Oxford, OH), who questioned the applicability of the concept neoliberalism in Eastern Europe tout court. Ganev attributed the continuing popularity of this ‘weasel word’ to politically-minded polemicists. His preferred alternative was the rather more humble ‘post-communism’.4

With respect to its stated goals, the workshop managed to move beyond a fixation with 1989 and the arrival of foreign advisors as external promoters of a liberal script created in the West. For all the constructive discussion and debate, there was, however, a sense of preaching to the converted. Those present will have to become missionaries if their vision is to gain any traction whatsoever. Thus far, the concept ‘peripheral liberalism’ has primarily been used to describe pro-market economists in (post-)socialist countries. The speakers’ list reflects this fact. The workshop made a commendable effort to include examples from other world regions or political systems. Based on the empirical research presented here, broadening the reach of the concept appears doable. It is not without risk, however. Many of the commentators, whose hard work should not go unmentioned, were political scientists who warned of watering down a definition so much that it no longer holds any meaning. They nevertheless saw potential in the overall research agenda. Looking ahead, the fields of political economy, area studies, global intellectual history, and the study of neoliberalism probably hold the most promise for research on the global turn towards open markets since the 1970s.

Conference overview:

Opening Remarks

Tobias Rupprecht (Berlin)

Soviet Union

Olessia Kirtchik (Paris): From Collective to Private Farm. Economic Experts and Power during Perestroika

Adam Leeds (New York): Yegor Gaidar's Early Thought. The Perfection of the Economic Mechanism and Reform Thinking Before Transition

Tobias Rupprecht (Berlin): A Failed Precursor of Russian Peripheral Liberalism. Why Gorbachev’s ‘Chinese Path’ Was Doomed

Comments: Juliane Fürst (Potsdam)

Soviet Union-Russia

Ivan Boldyrev (Nijmegen): A Soviet (Neo)liberal? Leonid Kantorovich in his Final Years

Fritz Bartel (College Station, TX): In Search of a Superpower. The IMF’s First Visits to Post-Soviet Russia

Ilya Matveev (Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration): From the Chicago Boys to Hjalmar Schacht. The Trajectory of the Neoliberal Bloc in Russia

Comments: Tobias Rupprecht (Berlin)

Former Soviet Union

Juhan Saharov (Tartu): Horizontal Contractuality in Services and Agriculture in the Estonian SSR (1985-87)

Kevin Axe (Berlin): A Baltic Tiger Teaches Abroad. Estonian Exportation of Neoliberal Thought, 1985-2008

Vladimer Papava (Tbilisi): On Liberal Economic Reforms in Post Communist Georgia

Comments: Fredrik Stöcker (Wien)

Africa

Sa’eed Husaini (Abuja): A Case of Convergence? Market Ideology in Nigeria’s Four Republics

Alex Peeples (Baltimore, MD): Financiers and Liberal Bureaucrats of African Socialism. Tanzania and Neoliberalism 1961-1990

Comments: Jeremiah Arowosegbe (Berlin)

Latin America

José Antonio Galindo Dominguez (Mexico City): Architects of the Latin American Neo-liberal Order. The Inter-American Council of Commerce and Production. Space of Contact and Formation of the Latin American Liberal Ideas, 1945-1955

Maximiliano Jara Barrera (Berlin): An Alternative Route of Chilean Neoliberalism. Pedro Ibáñez Ojeda and the Regional Meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society in Viña del Mar, 1981

Comments: Álvaro Morcillo (Berlin)

China and Southeast Asia

Tuong Vu (Eugene, OR) / Pham Thi Hong Ha (Hanoi): The Resilience of Liberal Economic Ideas and Their Contributions to Vietnam’s Market Reform in the 1980s China

Barry Naughton (San Diego) How Thorough Was China's Commitment to Market Liberalism? How Much Was Forsaken?

Wang Hui (Beijing): Chinese Neoliberalism

Comments: Felix Wemheuer (Köln)

China

Alice Trinkle (Berlin) Abandon Leninism, Accomplish Freedom. How Su Shaozhi’s Reform Theories Were Shaped by Encounters with Hungarian Reformers

Yating Zhang (Berlin) The Grey Zone of China’s Economic Reform. Private Sectors and Economic Crimes in the 1980s

Federico Pacchetti (Budapest): Tailored. The Political Economy of the World Bank’s Early Contacts with China

Comments: Genia Kostka (Berlin)

Central and Eastern Europe

Péter Vámos (Budapest): Do Hungarian Economists ‘Share Blame’ for China’s ‘Monstrous Turn’? The Influence of Hungarian Economic Reform Theories and Practices on China’s Market Reforms in the 1980s

Ia Eradze (Tiblisi): Making of the Central Bank of Georgia in the 1990s. Tracing the Roots of Neoliberalism in a Transition State

Comments: Aron Buzogany (Wien)

Central and Eastern Europe

Luboš Studený (Prague): Towards a ‘Real Functioning Market’. Czechoslovakia between Socialism and Capitalism

Benedek Pál (Wien): Between Crisis and Reform. Critical Discourses on the Future of State Socialism in Hungary, 1980-87

Venelin Ganev (Oxford, OH) Neoliberalism or Post-Communism? The Transformation of Eastern Europe in the 1990s

Comments: Sebastian Hoppe (Berlin)

Notes:
1 Kevin Axe / Tobias Rupprecht / Alice Trinkle, Peripheral Liberalism. New Perspectives on the History of the Liberal Script in the (Post-)Socialist World. SCRIPTS Working Paper No. 13, Berlin 2021.
2 World Bank, China. Socialist Economic Development, 1983 in: https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/192611468769173749/the-economy-statistical-system-and-basic-data (7.11.2022).
3 János Kornai, Economists share blame for China's 'monstrous' turn, in: https://www.ft.com/content/f10ccb26-a16f-11e9-a282-2df48f366f7d (7.11.2022).
4 Venelin I. Ganev and others, Weasel Words and the Analysis of “Postcommunist” Politics. A Symposium, in: East European Politics and Societies 34 (2020), pp. 283-325.