Event Summary: What Time Is It? A Cross-Cutting Conference on Historical Perspectives and Global Governance Reform

loading slideshow...

GDP Center Director Kevin P. Gallagher addresses attendees on day one of the conference.
GDP Center Faculty Affiliate and HPE Project Co-Director Quinn Slobodian speaks on day one of the conference.
HPE Project Co-Director and New York University Associate Professor of History Christy Thornton speaks on day one of the conference.
From L to R: Aimee Genell (Boston University), Madelyn Lugli (Harvard University), Jamie Martin (Harvard University) and Robert Yee (Yale University).
From L to R: Quinn Slobodian, Jonathan Kirshner (Boston College), Alanna O’Malley (Erasmus University, Rotterdam) and Nana Osei-Opare (Rice University).
From L to R: Christy Thornton, Su Lin Lewis (University of Bristol), Giuliana Chamedes (University of Wisconsin, Madison) and Mike Franczak (United Nations University Centre for Policy Research).
Elisabeth Leake (Tufts University) delivers the keynote address on day one of the conference.
José Antonio Ocampo (Columbia University) delivers the keynote address on day two of the conference.
From L to R: Richard Kozul-Wright (GDP Center), Ho-Fung Hung (Johns Hopkins University), Daniel Munevar (International Monetary Fund), Bhumika Muchhala (Third World Network) and Paul Adlerstein (Colorado College).

The History and Political Economy (HPE) Project and the Global Development Policy (GDP) Center held a two-day workshop on May 4 and 5 titled “What Time is It? Turning Points and Ruptures in Global Governance.” Co-directed by GDP Center Faculty Affiliate Quinn Slobodian, the HPE Project collaborated with the GDP Center to co-host a series of webinars in spring 2025 through the project’s Histories and Futures of Global Governance Initiative. Building on the webinars and subsequent reports, the conference assembled experts to dig deeper into the past and future of the global order. GDP Center Director Kevin Gallagher provided welcoming remarks, helping set the stage for two days of reflection on how lessons from history may be useful in the present.

In addition to two keynote speakers, attendees traveled through time in four roundtable panel discussions tackling a different decade in chronological sequence (1920s, 1940s, 1970s and 1990s). These sessions discussed critical questions on how the past can define the future, answering: Have we been here before? Is our current moment unprecedented? And can attention to the past help orient us as we think about where we are today?

The conference’s unique value arose from the merging of different perspectives. Panelists included historians, sociologists, political scientists and economists, each offering their own lens to the discussion, whether on the Ottoman Empire, sweatshop activists in the 1990s or macroeconomic policy. Yet each carried a shared commitment to using their expertise to rethink questions of the past and address today’s challenges.

An innovative start

Laying the foundation for the two days, the 1920s panel raised several questions revisited throughout the workshop: is the success of a time period defined by innovation or institutional survival? Who are the ones making decisions? How should regional interests be balanced with international needs? Deemed the “experimental twenties,” reflections on the League of Nations pointed to its political creativity and commitment to innovation, while also raising questions of legitimacy and sovereignty in the global order.

The ultimate collapse of the interwar global economic governance regime naturally led into discussions of World War II. In many ways, postwar reconstruction contrasts the current moment, with panelists noting the shared solidarity at the time, rooted in similar experiences of inequality, as well as actors learning from past failures, leading to the creation of the Bretton Woods institutions. At the same time, attendees discussed the lingering consequences of colonial extraction, evident in countries today that have inherited weak institutions and high debt levels.

The 1940s panel raised broader questions about whether a “new Bretton Woods” would require entirely new institutions, a disempowered United States or greater integration of the development agenda and the global economy. Participants questioned whether governments today possess either the financial power, political will or creativity in moments of crisis to push forward reform.

Crisis or opportunity?

If the 1940s represented a moment of new possibilities, the 1970s served as a foil: the dissolution of the Bretton Woods system, abandonment of the gold standard and compounding oil and food crises. The New International Economic Order (NIEO) reflected efforts to restructure global integration on more equal terms, and the oil crisis brought renewed attention to terms of trade.

Participants reflected on the World Bank and International Monetary Fund crises of identity and legitimacy in this period, followed by their renewed relevance during the debt crisis. This prompted discussion on whether these institutions are capable of adapting to today’s moments of instability.

The rise of Hong Kong served as an example of how periods of upheaval can reshape the global economy. The 1990s were largely marked by an era of deeper interconnectedness, and while the decade witnessed the collapse of the Soviet Union, it also saw the rise of China.

Still, heightened integration of developing countries into global value chains and rapidly expanding global trade also resulted in consumer backlash against corporate globalization and unregulated finance, as well as export zone-induced dispossession.

Zooming in, zooming out

The specificity of historical case studies underscored the conference’s value-add: there is much to learn from particular countries, leaders and moments. Elisabeth Leake offered the case of Namibia in her keynote address, highlighting the limits of global governance, the role of non-state actors and the enduring legacies of imperialism in struggles for sovereignty.

Leake emphasized the role that historians play in policy: they complicate oversimplified narratives. Diving into the details of Namibia’s case study and subsequently stepping back to get a wide-angle lens on macroeconomic history challenged attendees to reflect on how they choose to view the past. Who’s included in the story, who’s not and what details might be overlooked?

Meanwhile, day two’s keynote speaker José Antonio Ocampo guided participants through decades of economic governance, from the collapse of the gold standard and the Latin American debt crisis to capital account regulations and reforms to balance-of-payments financing. Ocampo argued that meaningful reform may ultimately need to emerge from South-South cooperation, given the constraints of the current governance structure.

Looking to the future:

As one participant noted, the conference challenged historians to do what they are not typically asked to do, that is, speak to the future. Yet for historians, policymakers and the public alike, the question of what lies ahead remains open.

As was the case throughout history, global governance faces an undecided future. Whether today most resembles the 1920s, 1940s, 1970s or 1990s is up for debate. But convenings like the conference help ground the global community in a deeper understanding of the past and prepare to navigate what’s next.