Suchergebnisse

AbstractCritical work in international political economy (IPE) has sought to theorise US financial power through the concept of structural power, intended as a means to go beyond state-centric conceptions of political power and to trace the state's interaction with socio-economic forces. But due to the tendency to ontologise the distinction between state and market, IPE has not been fully successful in articulating the linkages between structural power and state power. The article then examines literature in the field of cultural political economy (CPE), which emphasises the constitutive importance of the cultural norms and practices situated at the level of everyday life. The CPE literature fails to challenge established IPE accounts in some key respects, and the article relates this to its conception of political power. The article develops an institution-based perspective that is more suitable to theorising the linkages between structural power and state power, and then proceeds to develop an interpretation of the construction of American financial power over the course of the 20th century. It reinterprets some of the key moments in the history of US and global finance and re-examines notions of American financial decline.

This essay argues that existing interpretations of US structural power in international finance do not pay sufficient attention to its institutional basis and specifities. It reviews some of the contributions to the literature and offers an account of the re-emergence of global finance during the 1960s to the monetarist turn and its aftermath. The conclusion offers some thoughts on the implications of the analysis for our understanding of US financial power in the current era. Adapted from the source document.

Intro -- Table of Contents -- Series page -- Title page -- Copyright page -- Acknowledgements -- Introduction -- Neoliberalism: a useful concept? -- Perspectives on neoliberalism -- Neoliberalism: a critical synthesis -- The structure of this book -- 1: Neoliberalism in Historical Perspective -- Intellectual origins -- The early postwar order and its decline -- Advancing neoliberal policies -- Spreading neoliberalism -- Consolidating neoliberalism -- Neoliberalism into the twenty-first century -- 2: Neoliberal Finance -- Globalizing finance -- States and financial markets -- Inflation and the Volcker shock -- Debt and austerity -- Financial crises -- Financialization -- 3: Work and Welfare -- Changing patterns of work and employment -- Neoliberalism and the welfare state -- Transformations of welfare -- 4: Corporate Power -- Corporate transformations -- Corporations, markets and neoliberal ideology -- The corporate funding of neoliberalism -- Neoliberalism and corporate power -- 5: Power, Inequality and Democracy -- Power in capitalist society -- Inequality in historical perspective -- Neoliberal inequality in the West -- Neoliberalism, inequality and the developing world -- The return of inequality into Western political discourse -- 6: Crisis and Resilience -- Neoliberal resilience after the crisis -- Neoliberal reason and resilience -- The paradoxical politics of neoliberalism -- References -- Index -- End User License Agreement.

"In the age of icons, major iconic figures play an ever-increasing role in political life. In emotionally charged and contradictory ways, contemporary icons convey boundless faith in a better world under construction while simultaneously embracing the status quo, lashing out at the ills of global capitalism, while at the same time representing and defending its triumphant possibilities and inevitable forward march. Today's icons offer the promise of limitless change without changing the limits of existing society, which is central to their popularity as well as to their defining contradiction: Western icons conduct widely celebrated superhuman feats with only modest, pragmatic outcomes."

Social theory and political economy have been in dialogue for long enough now that it is no longer eccentric to speak of a 'financial imagination': the subject's encounter with the world of money and debt is traversed by hopes and dreams. Since this has become a commonplace, two perspectives on the financial imagination have come to dominate the scholarly field.One relates it primarily to the concepts and rhetoric of economic thought, found in various traditions of political economy, economics, and finance theory. This version of the financial imagination works from the outside-in, structuring the mechanisms and movements of the financial world from the perspective of some point outside of finance. The theoretical imagination of finance has been amply explored from a range of perspectives. There are histories of financial economists, conceptual histories of finance, genealogies of financial institutions, and so on (Mehrling, 2005; Toporowski, 2005; de Goede, 2005).

Contrary to mainstream diagnoses blaming the current financial crisis on a retreat of the state, Leo Panitch and Martijn Konings trace the active interventions that have shaped US finance and yoked working-class America to the discipline of debt. Adapted from the source document.

This essay examines the questions raised by the present financial crisis through an enquiry into the institutional foundations of American finance. We view with some skepticism strong claims concerning the disastrous outcome for the structural dynamism of the global financial system and America's position in it. Many critical political economists tend to take the system of global financial markets as their point of departure and then locate the US in this system. Such approaches, however, generally fail to do justice to the decades-long build up of US financial power and do not capture many of the organic institutional linkages through which the American state is connected to the world of global finance and which are responsible for its imperial sprawl. In many ways, financial globalization is not best understood as the re-emergence of international finance but rather as a process through which the expansionary dynamics of American finance took on global dimensions. Because the present system of global finance has been shaped so profoundly by specifically American institutions and practices, it will not do to evaluate the changes and transformations of this system on the basis of either an abstract, generic model of capitalism or mere extrapolations from conjunctural crises. Crisis and instability are part and parcel of the dynamics of imperial finance and so are the managerial capacities developed by the US state. The most important questions that should occupy critical political economists therefore have to do not with what appear to be external challenges to US financial power (or the putative opportunities for progressive change opened up by them), but rather relate to the ways in which the imperial network of intricate, complex and often opaque institutional linkages between the US state and global finance is managed and reproduced. ; This essay examines the questions raised by the present financial crisis through an enquiry into the institutional foundations of American finance. We view with some skepticism strong claims concerning the disastrous outcome for the structural dynamism of the global financial system and America's position in it. Many critical political economists tend to take the system of global financial markets as their point of departure and then locate the US in this system. Such approaches, however, generally fail to do justice to the decades-long build up of US financial power and do not capture many of the organic institutional linkages through which the American state is connected to the world of global finance and which are responsible for its imperial sprawl. In many ways, financial globalization is not best understood as the re-emergence of international finance but rather as a process through which the expansionary dynamics of American finance took on global dimensions. Because the present system of global finance has been shaped so profoundly by specifically American institutions and practices, it will not do to evaluate the changes and transformations of this system on the basis of either an abstract, generic model of capitalism or mere extrapolations from conjunctural crises. Crisis and instability are part and parcel of the dynamics of imperial finance and so are the managerial capacities developed by the US state. The most important questions that should occupy critical political economists therefore have to do not with what appear to be external challenges to US financial power (or the putative opportunities for progressive change opened up by them), but rather relate to the ways in which the imperial network of intricate, complex and often opaque institutional linkages between the US state and global finance is managed and reproduced.

This essay examines the questions raised by the present financial crisis through an enquiry into the institutional foundations of American finance. We view with some scepticism strong claims concerning the disastrous outcome for the structural dynamism of the global financial system and America's position in it. Many critical political economists tend to take the system of global financial markets as their point of departure and then locate the US in this system. Such approaches, however, generally fail to do justice to the decades-long build up of US financial power and do not capture many of the organic institutional linkages through which the American state is connected to the world of global finance and which are responsible for its imperial sprawl. In many ways, financial globalisation is not best understood as the re-emergence of international finance but, rather, as a process through which the expansionary dynamics of American finance took on global dimensions. Because the present system of global finance has been shaped so profoundly by specifically American institutions and practices, it will not do to evaluate the changes and transformations of this system on the basis of either an abstract, generic model of capitalism or mere extrapolations from conjunctural crises. Crisis and instability are part and parcel of the dynamics of imperial finance and so are the managerial capacities developed by the US state. The most important questions that should occupy critical political economists therefore have to do not with what appear to be external challenges to US financial power (or the putative opportunities for progressive change opened up by them), but, rather, relate to the ways in which the imperial network of intricate, complex and often opaque institutional linkages between the US state and global finance is managed and reproduced.

Die interdisziplinäre Reflexion über das Wesen des Wirtschafts- und Finanzlebens erfreut sich steigender Beliebtheit. Das Interesse der Sozialtheorie, Philosophie und Geisteswissenschaften an Fragen der Politischen Ökonomie sowie die Beschäftigung mit den konzeptionellen Grundlagen des Kapitalismus nimmt zu. In diesem Kontext fragt Martijn Konings nach der Bedeutung von Unsicherheit, Kontingenz und Zeit im gegenwärtigen Kapitalismus. Seine Analysen richten sich an Leser*innen mit allgemeinem sozialwissenschaftlichen Hintergrund und ermöglichen eine Auseinandersetzung mit Schlüsselfragen der Finanzwirtschaft und der Politischen Ökonomie

Cover -- Title page -- Copyright page -- Contents -- Preface -- Introduction -- Plan of the book -- Asset Logics -- From commodity logics to asset logics -- Minskyan households -- The centrality of housing -- Governing the asset economy -- The Making of the Asset Economy -- Price inflation and asset deflation in the 1970s -- Shifts in the tax and financial regime -- Asset democratization and its contradictions -- New Class Realities -- Lineages of class theory -- Class and generation -- Asset-driven lifetimes -- Conclusion -- References -- Index -- EULA.