The liberal international economic order has been facing high-profile legitimacy challenges in recent years. This article puts these challenges in historical context through a systematic analysis of rhetorical challenges towards both the order per se and specific global economic institutions. Drawing on Albert Hirschman’s classic typology of exit, voice and loyalty, we coded leaders’ speeches in the General Debate at the UN General Assembly between 1970 and 2018 as articulating intentions to abandon elements of the order, challenges or calls for reform, unequivocal support, or factual mentions of cooperation. Surprisingly, we find that explicit criticisms towards the liberal order are at an all-time low and that exit threats remain rare. An analysis of the historical evolution of criticisms to global economic institutions reveals a move away from the Cold War insider-outsider conflict towards insider contestation. For example, we find that as countries’ economies become more open, their leaders expressed more support for global economic institutions during the Cold War but less support since. Finally, we demonstrate consistency between the public policy positions leaders announce in UNGA General Debate speeches and their government positions on consequential reform debates on debt relief.

近年来，自由国际经济秩序一直面临着备受瞩目的合法性挑战。本文通过对秩序本身和特定全球经济制度的修辞挑战进行系统分析，将这些挑战置于历史背景下。借鉴阿尔伯特·赫希曼（Albert Hirschman）关于退出，发言权和忠诚度的经典类型，我们在1970年至2018年的联合国大会一般辩论中对领导人的演讲进行了编码，明确表达了放弃秩序，挑战或改革要求，明确支持，或实际提及合作。令人惊讶的是，我们发现对自由主义秩序的明确批评处于历史最低水平，退出威胁仍然很少。对批评对全球经济机构的历史演变的分析表明，它已从冷战内外矛盾转向内幕竞争。例如，我们发现随着各国经济的开放，其领导人对冷战期间的全球经济机构表示更多的支持，但此后却表示较少的支持。最后，我们证明了联合国秘书长在联合国大会一般性辩论演讲中宣布的公共政策立场与政府在随之而来的关于债务减免的改革辩论中的立场之间的一致性。