The financialisation of infrastructure: the role of categorisation and property relations

O’Neill, Philip

doi:10.1093/cjres/rst017

Cited by 89 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, the apparatus made the kinds of regulatory, contractual, and licensing interventions that, as O'Neill () documents as taking place elsewhere, are necessary for bringing greater certainty to future income streams arising from urban infrastructure. As the “finance update” on the 2013 NIP made plain, the lion's share of planned infrastructure developments to be solely financed by private investors on a project finance basis were in the United Kingdom's energy sector (HM Treasury ).…”

Section: Apparatuses For Financializing Urban Infrastructurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…To develop and illustrate this conceptual argument, the article's second aim is to offer an analysis of the financialization of urban infrastructure that focuses on the United Kingdom's first ever National Infrastructure Plan (NIP), enacted between 2010 and 2015. Unlike much of the financialization literature, the significance of the state is already an important theme in research into the financialization of urban infrastructure (e.g., Allen and Pryke 2013;Ashton, Doussard, and Weber 2012;Desai and Loftus 2012;Hall and Jonas 2014;Kirkpatrick and Smith 2011;O'Neill 2009O'Neill , 2010O'Neill , 2013Torrance 2009;Weber 2010). For Philip O'Neill (2013), for example, the financialization of urban infrastructure is carried forward through the structurally necessary but contingent creation of extensive state regulatory and legal provisions for capital.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unlike much of the financialization literature, the significance of the state is already an important theme in research into the financialization of urban infrastructure (e.g., Allen and Pryke 2013;Ashton, Doussard, and Weber 2012;Desai and Loftus 2012;Hall and Jonas 2014;Kirkpatrick and Smith 2011;O'Neill 2009O'Neill , 2010O'Neill , 2013Torrance 2009;Weber 2010). For Philip O'Neill (2013), for example, the financialization of urban infrastructure is carried forward through the structurally necessary but contingent creation of extensive state regulatory and legal provisions for capital. Such provisions are essential to establishing specific urban infrastructural property rights, the monetized future income streams that they potentially generate, and the leveraging of debt finance in the present (against future income streams) to fund investment in urban infrastructure (see also Allen and Pryke 2013;Hall and Jonas 2014;Weber 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Frontier financialization: Urban infrastructure in the United Kingdom

Langley

2018

Economic Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article contributes to critical social scientific understanding of the significance of state power to the furtherance of the financialization of socioeconomic life. Drawing on the poststructural theories of power of Gilles Deleuze and Michel Foucault, the concepts of “diagram” and “dispositif” are developed to foreground how changes in modalities and relations of power are manifest in shifting governmental rationalities and contingent policy interventions that attempt to advance financialization processes. The article's conceptual claims are illustrated through an analysis of the financialization of urban infrastructure that focuses on the United Kingdom's first ever National Infrastructure Plan (NIP), enacted between 2010 and 2015. The NIP is shown to have marked a step‐change in the UK state's approach to the governing of ostensibly public urban infrastructure, one that sought to reconfigure privately owned, market‐operated, and privately financed infrastructures as a “new asset class” to be prospected for value by global investors. As the NIP problematized the private debt financing of urban infrastructure, it was through the diagram of governmental planning that the apparent limit points of financialization processes were identified and confronted, and through specific dispositif that attempts were made to extend the frontier of financialization.

show abstract

Section: Apparatuses For Financializing Urban Infrastructurementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Frontier financialization: Urban infrastructure in the United Kingdom

Langley

2018

Economic Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since the 1980s, the implementation of new public management paradigms, performance management (Manville and Broad 2013) (Aalbers at al. 2015;Ashton et al 2014;Acerete, et al 2011;O'Neill 2013), where the equity politics and knowledge of financialization are redeveloped to create new financial innovations through bricolage (Engelen et al 2010).…”

Section: Third Sector: From Equity Markets To Non-marketsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Financialization and the third sector: Innovation in social housing bond markets

Wainwright

Manville

2016

Environ Plan A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent global financial crisis has seen investors turn away from real-estate bonds, given their role in distributing risk during the crisis. However, since 2009, a new type of real-estate bond market has grown in London, enabling social housing groups to issue bonds. This could be viewed as further evidence of the extension of financialization practices into new spaces, beyond those of traditional capital markets and associated intermediaries. In this paper, we examine how financialization has begun to permeate the third sector, reordering the priority of housing associations' values, displacing social value creation with the economic. We highlight how reduced state funding has led social housing providers to become more reliant on capital market intermediaries, and explore how locally orientated social housing associations have become embedded within wider financial networks. While policy makers have viewed financial markets as a panacea to fund social housing developments in an age of austerity, tensions have emerged, requiring localized social housing organizations to become more commercial in their activities, jeopardizing their ability to protect vulnerable communities through social value creation.

show abstract

“…Moreover, the incorporation of these aspects has not been the result of the growing power of finance per se. On the contrary, it has been a deliberate decision of public-sector actors to open the doors to private financiers and service providers, which has been encouraged by a global production network of private firms, trade associations and international development agencies (O'Neill, 2010;Ashton et al, 2012;O'Neill, 2013). The increasing use of long-term private debt financing and advanced risk-allocation techniques, as part of the incorporation of market forces and financial imperatives in infrastructure delivery, suggests that governments apply a new rationale to the delivery of projects, and that they have reformulated their perception of value--seeing the most cost-effective solution as the objective to be achieved.…”

Section: Public-private Partnerships Perceptions Of Value and Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public–Private Partnerships and the Design Process: Consequences for Architects and City Building

Hurk

Siemiatycki

2018

Int J Urban Regional Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Governments are increasingly using public–private partnerships (PPPs) to deliver public infrastructures and facilities. The prime motivation to embark on these partnerships is often to deliver products and services on time and on budget. It is generally assumed that by transferring project risks and responsibilities to private‐sector actors, governments can achieve better value for money. This article provides a novel perspective on the standards applied in PPP endeavors as it examines the tensions between the public management rationale behind value for money on the one hand, and conceptions of design and city building on the other. We focus on planning practice in the Canadian province of Ontario to show that governments apply different understandings of value in PPPs which, in turn, affect the way the design process is run. Architects, who are used to playing the role of master builder in a traditional public infrastructure project, are shifted into a less influential position and struggle with their new role. Furthermore, a different set of priorities applies in the new procurement process. The increasing use of PPPs can thus have significant consequences for city building.

show abstract

The financialisation of infrastructure: the role of categorisation and property relations

Cited by 89 publications

References 16 publications

Frontier financialization: Urban infrastructure in the United Kingdom

Frontier financialization: Urban infrastructure in the United Kingdom

Financialization and the third sector: Innovation in social housing bond markets

Public–Private Partnerships and the Design Process: Consequences for Architects and City Building

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About