Suchergebnisse

The Making of Modern Finance is a path-breaking study of the construction of liberal financial governance and demonstrates how complex forms of control by the state profoundly transformed the nature of modern finance. Challenging dominant theoretical conceptions of liberal financial governance in international political economy, this book argues that liberal economic governance is too often perceived as a passive form of governance. It situates the gold standard in relation to practices of monetary governance which preceded it, tracing the evolution of monetary governance fr.

Reflecting on the broad ambitions of macro-finance, I argue that the commitment to placing finance at the centre of our economic conceptions comes with significant risks that speak directly to the politics of financialisation. By redirecting the focus of economic governance towards finance, macro-finance may consolidate rather than challenge the problematic trends of global finance. More specifically, I argue that the focus of the money view on liquidity has contributed to depoliticising financial governance and aligning it further with the demands of financialisation.

Reflecting on the broad ambitions of macro-finance, I argue that the commitment
to placing finance at the centre of our economic conceptions comes with
significant risks that speak directly to the politics of financialisation. By
redirecting the focus of economic governance towards finance, macro-finance may
consolidate rather than challenge the problematic trends of global finance. More
specifically, I argue that the focus of the money view on liquidity has
contributed to depoliticising financial governance and aligning it further with
the demands of financialisation.

AbstractThis article examines recent attempts by International Relations (IR) scholars to flesh out a reflexive approach inspired by the work of Pierre Bourdieu. The French sociologist pioneered the idea of turning the tools of sociology onto oneself in order to apply the same grid of social analysis to the object and subject of scholarship. This represents the culmination of a long tradition of seeking to understand from where one speaks and grasp our subjective biases through reflexive means. But as I argue Bourdieu – like most reflexive scholars – largely overestimated his ability to grasp his own subject position. For he assumed he could be objective about the very thing he had the least reasons to be objective about: himself. Instead of bending over backwards in this way and directly take the subject into account, I then propose to rearticulate the problematic of reflexivity by going back to a more classic concern with the question of alienation. Through a detailed critique of Bourdieu's reflexive approach and the ways in which it was received in IR, I set out a series of principles to reconfigure the agenda of reflexivity and offer a platform for a proper methodological alternative to positivism.

Finance has traditionally been conceptualized on the basis of what could be labelled a credit model. This model theorizes finance as a functional actor in the process of capitalist accumulation. This structural model has entertained a specific understanding of the contradictions of finance which emphasizes the imbalances in its relation to production. While the rich literature based on this template has generated important insights for understanding capitalist finance, it is debatable whether the credit model is sufficient to account for financial speculation. This article argues that the perception that speculation is essentially based on irrational optimism fails to capture what is important about recent developments of finance. New conceptual foundations are required, in order to develop a political economy of speculation which examines the way in which speculation is socially constructed, how it evolves through history and whether or not it is transforming the nature of capital accumulation.

Cet article examine le débat épistémologique en relations internationales (ri) et les critiques à l'endroit du positivisme. Il avance que les approches critiques ne parviennent pas à préciser suffisamment quel est le problème du positivisme. On ne sait jamais à quoi pourrait ressembler une épistémologie postpositiviste. Ce texte met l'emphase sur la contribution des poststructuralistes en montrant comment le rôle central de la différence dans la construction du sens explique pourquoi nos théories sont toujours indépendantes du monde qu'elles analysent, sans toutefois être arbitraires. Il s'éloigne cependant de la stratégie de la déconstruction, en affirmant que reconnaître le rôle que joue la différence au niveau épistémologique offre un terrain sur lequel peut s'ériger une nouvelle forme de rigueur analytique que nous qualifions ici de critique.