In this paper, we develop a novel interpretation of the internal relationship between value, rent and finance, thereby enabling a new reading of the process of financialisation. As we argue, responding to the important question of how best to conceptualise the relationship between value and finance necessitates an understanding of the internal relations with a third moment, that of rent. We therefore develop a triadic understanding of these three interrelated moments. Crucially, we demonstrate that fictitious capital now actively pursues forms of rent, deepening the interrelationship between value, rent and finance. We conclude with a critical review of the literature on the financialisation of water, showing how the conceptual framework we develop sheds light upon the relations out of which water infrastructure has been financialised, as well as suggesting strategic entry points for its contestation.

No abstract

The turn towards the knowledge-based economy and creative strategies to enhance urban competitiveness within it has been well documented. Yet too little has been said to date about the transformation of land use for new productive activities, and the contradictions inherent to this process. Our case study is Barcelona, an erstwhile 'model' for urban regeneration which has sought to transform itself into a global knowledge city since 2000. Through the lens of Marxian value theory, and Harvey's writing on urban monopoly rents especially, we show how the 22@Barcelona projectconceived with received wisdom about the determinants of urban knowledge-based competitiveness in mind -amounted to an exercise in the capture of monopoly rents, driven by the compulsion of public sector institutions, financiers and developers to pursue rental profit-maximizing opportunities through the mobilization of land as a financial asset.

Water infrastructure has been financed by differing combinations of private and public ownership throughout history and across different geographies. In the present moment, processes of financialization suggest a radical reconfiguration of these arrangements in a number of locations, such that water infrastructure is being transformed into a wealth extraction mechanism. In this Primer Article, we introduce financialization, showing how the term describes a process through which financial actors have gained new power and in which the locus of profit making at least appears to have shifted from the “real economy” to a financial economy. In the case of water infrastructure, processes of financialization have enabled apparently fixed and stable forms such as pipes, water treatment plants, and sewers to be transformed into liquid assets, opening up new opportunities for sovereign wealth funds and pension fund investors. The super‐profits made by these financial actors are best conceptualized as forms of rent, derived in part from the monopoly ownership of a basic need. This distinctive shift needs to be positioned in relation to broader changes in the political economy of water infrastructure. We situate financialization historically in relation to the development of water utilities and networks: municipalization and nationalization during the first decades of the 20th century, privatization since the 1990s, and renewed interest in remunicipalization in some places alongside the deepening logic of financialization in others. We conclude by thinking through the likely implication of water financialization for future infrastructural arrangements. This article is categorized under: Human Water > Value of Water Human Water > Water Governance Engineering Water > Planning Water

If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections.