Suchergebnisse

The definitive account of the history of poverty finance' - Susanne Soederberg

Finance, mobile and digital technologies - or 'fintech' - are being heralded in the world of development by the likes of the IMF and World Bank as a silver bullet in the fight against poverty. But should we believe the hype?

A Critical History of Poverty Finance demonstrates how newfangled 'digital financial inclusion' efforts suffer from the same essential flaws as earlier iterations of neoliberal 'financial inclusion'. Relying on artificially created markets that simply aren't there among the world's most disadvantaged economic actors, they also reinforce existing patterns of inequality and uneven development, many of which date back to the colonial era.

Bernards offers an astute analysis of the current fintech fad, contextualised through a detailed colonial history of development finance, that ultimately reveals the neoliberal vision of poverty alleviation for the pipe dream it is.

"Standard employment relationships, with permanent contracts, regular hours, and decent pay, are under assault. Precarious work and unemployment are increasingly common, and concern is also growing about the expansion of informal work and the rise of modern slavery. However, precarity and violence are in fact longstanding features of work for most of the worlds population. Lamenting the loss of secure, stable jobs often reflects a strikingly Eurocentric and historically myopic perspective.This book argues that standard employment relations have always co-existed with a plethora of different labour regimes. Highlighting the importance of the governance of irregular forms of labour the author draws together empirical, historical analyses of International Labour Organisation (ILO) policy towards forced labour, unemployment, and social protection for informal workers in sub-Saharan Africa. Archival research, extensive documentary research and interviews with key ILO staff are utilised to explore the critical role the organizations activities have often played in the development of mechanisms for governing irregular labour. Addressing the increasingly widespread and pressing practical debates about the politics of precarious labour in the world economy this book speaks to key debates in several disciplines, especially IPE, global governance, and labour studies. It will also be of interest to scholars working in development studies and critical political economy."--Provided by publisher.

AbstractThis essay reviews two recent books—Marion Laboure and Nicolas Deffrennes's Democratizing Finance and Eswar S. Prasad's The Future of Money—on financial technology (fintech) and the future of money. Both books present overviews of recent developments in fintech and assess the prospects of technological change to deliver a more accessible, equitable financial system—described in both cases as the "democratization of finance." I raise two key concerns about the limits of the "democratization" implied here. First, the vision of democratized finance implicit in both books rests on claims about widening access to financial services for individuals, households, and businesses. This contrasts with more substantive visions of democratized finance that entail the exercise of accountable, deliberative decision-making on monetary and financial questions. Second, "fintech democracy" rests on a very thin account of how finance might be democratized, stressing exogenous technological change, with little consideration of relations of power, institutional reforms, or mobilization. Both books provide eloquent and comprehensive overviews of emerging fintech debates, but in so doing ultimately reveal important limitations to achieving financial democracy through fintech.

ABSTRACTThis article contributes to debates about the persistence of colonial hierarchies in global finance by examining the reproduction of key features of colonial monetary and financial systems through the end of formal colonialism in West Africa, with a focus on Ghana. The article draws together engagements with Marxian theories of money and of the colonial state, and an examination of a key period which has often not received sufficient direct attention in debates about colonialism and financial subordination: the breakdown and end of formal colonial rule, roughly between 1930 and 1960. The central puzzle addressed in this article is how, despite the explicit desire on the part of nationalist political leaders to overturn colonial financial systems, these wound up being reproduced through the negotiation of political independence. The article shows how the entanglements of colonial monetary and financial systems with processes of state formation posed severe limits on efforts to articulate a 'developmental' colonialism after World War II. Efforts to work around these limits ultimately reinforced the reliance of the colonial and postcolonial state on extractive and hierarchical structures of global finance. In short, the article shows how the contradictory position of the state in colonial capitalism is vital to understanding the persistence of colonial monetary and financial structures.

This article traces experiments aimed at promoting wider adoption of 'microinsurance' – small, simplified insurance policies targeting the poorest. Microinsurance is a central element of a wider turn towards the promotion of 'resilience' in global development. The development of commercial markets for microinsurance, however, has failed to meet the expectations of promoters. This article traces the ways that the diverse donor agencies, professional organizations and philanthropic organizations involved in the promotion of microinsurance have responded to these failures, primarily by seeking to articulate basic data infrastructures that might make possible profitable insurance operations. These activities are described as a kind of 'anticipatory marketization' – experiments seeking to prepare the ground for the emergence of markets for risk management, thus far without much success. Where microinsurance has often been described in terms of 'financialization', this article suggests that there are important political dynamics at play that have been overlooked. Efforts to develop markets for microinsurance, and the persistent focus on troubleshooting and re-engineering those markets in the face of failure, are not driven directly by finance capital. Rather, they reflect fraught efforts to articulate modes of social protection not requiring substantial redistribution.

This article traces experiments aimed at promoting wider adoption of 'microinsurance' – small, simplified insurance policies targeting the poorest. Microinsurance is a central element of a wider turn towards the promotion of 'resilience' in global development. The development of commercial markets for microinsurance, however, has failed to meet the expectations of promoters. This article traces the ways that the diverse donor agencies, professional organizations and philanthropic organizations involved in the promotion of microinsurance have responded to these failures, primarily by seeking to articulate basic data infrastructures that might make possible profitable insurance operations. These activities are described as a kind of 'anticipatory marketization' – experiments seeking to prepare the ground for the emergence of markets for risk management, thus far without much success. Where microinsurance has often been described in terms of 'financialization', this article suggests that there are important political dynamics at play that have been overlooked. Efforts to develop markets for microinsurance, and the persistent focus on troubleshooting and re-engineering those markets in the face of failure, are not driven directly by finance capital. Rather, they reflect fraught efforts to articulate modes of social protection not requiring substantial redistribution.

This forum contribution highlights the confluence of two distinct trends in the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath. On one hand, many of the worst socio-economic costs of the virus and control measures have been disproportionately borne by marginalized workers, primarily in the global south. Often these impacts have not overlapped with the public health costs of the virus itself. In this sense the pandemic has highlighted the ways that risks in the global political economy are unevenly and systematically distributed. On the other, early indications are that highly individualized notions of 'risk management' and 'resilience' will be central to post-crisis global development agendas. At the same time as the COVID-19 pandemic has made the systemic and unequal nature of risks in the global political economy visible, then, many of the most marginalized segments of the world's population are being asked to take responsibility for managing those risks.