From the perspective of international relations (IR) and political science, a seismic shift in the study of peace has been occurring which has shaken the problemsolving foundations of liberal peacebuilding and the dominance of Kantian epistemology. Mainstream approaches have hitherto emphasised improvements in the techniques of making, keeping, and building peace (e.g., Berdal and Wennmann 2010; Call and Wyeth 2008;Collier et al. 2003;Doyle and Sambanis 2006;Paris 2004), rather than exploring the norms and values of a liberal paradigm that fosters silence around structural violence emanating from zones of peace and probity (and the economic agencies that they dominate). This article contends that the silence has been broken by a crisis of legitimacy of the liberal paradigm, heralded by hybrid forms of peace that reflect local adaptations and resistance to foreign presence, as well as by alternative concepts of intervention.This contribution is in three parts. The first considers the impact and limitations of economics in the context of the liberal peace paradigm. The second part examines the way in which interdisciplinary studies have opened up and extended debates about the role of political economy in conflict and peacebuilding. As during violent conflict itself, peace (or relative peace) is characterised by the permeability of ethnic divides, with economic exchange sometimes breaching socially constructed boundaries and with ethnic hostilities modified by economic interactions, often of an informal kind. The third part focuses on the influence of post-colonial studies on the conceptualisation of peacebuilding to highlight the issue of whether subalterns in war-torn societies decide their own forms of political economy and welfare. The article concludes that interdisciplinary frameworks can provide economic studies with opportunities to reveal the agency of peacebuilding 'hosts' in their everyday lives and interactions with interventionists.