The Financialized State

Bryan, Dick; Harvie, David; Rafferty, Mike; Tinel, Bruno

doi:10.4324/9781315114255-17

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While celebrated by advocates, SIBs have been scrutinized by critics concerned not only with whether the model works but also with what it signifies and how it might impact the social sector. A key current running through the critical literature is that SIBs are indicative of the “financialization” of social and public services (Bryan et al, 2020; Dowling, 2017; Sinclair et al, 2021; Warner, 2013). In some accounts, this is viewed through a political economy lens, with SIBs conceived as a new “asset class” and response to the crisis tendencies of neoliberalism (Dowling, 2017; Harvie and Ogman, 2019; Sinclair et al, 2021), while in others the focus is on the spread of financial and “derivative” logics (Bryan et al, 2020) and the role of financial interests in reshaping the mandates of charitable organizations (Berndt and Wirth, 2018; Cooper et al, 2016; Tse and Warner, 2020).…”

Section: The Social Impact Bond (R)evolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A key current running through the critical literature is that SIBs are indicative of the “financialization” of social and public services (Bryan et al, 2020; Dowling, 2017; Sinclair et al, 2021; Warner, 2013). In some accounts, this is viewed through a political economy lens, with SIBs conceived as a new “asset class” and response to the crisis tendencies of neoliberalism (Dowling, 2017; Harvie and Ogman, 2019; Sinclair et al, 2021), while in others the focus is on the spread of financial and “derivative” logics (Bryan et al, 2020) and the role of financial interests in reshaping the mandates of charitable organizations (Berndt and Wirth, 2018; Cooper et al, 2016; Tse and Warner, 2020). Regardless, reflecting a common definition of financialization as the growing influence of finance over everyday life (Martin, 2002), the central notion is that SIBs are further evidence of the expanding frontiers of finance, a case of “the penetration of financial criteria and issues into what were previously non-economic areas” (Sinclair et al, 2021: 18).…”

Section: The Social Impact Bond (R)evolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 6. Liquidity is a key financial construct and desired property of investments, referring to the ease with which investments can be converted into cash (Bryan et al 2020). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Finance interrupted: Social impact bonds, spatial politics, and the limits of financial innovation in the social sector

Williams

2023

Environ Plan A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An enduring legacy of the 2007–2009 financial crisis is the growth of “social” and “impact” investing, markets dedicated to the use of financial capital to achieve social good. This paper examines one key manifestation of these markets: the social impact bond, a financial device which uses private capital to fund social programs. While social impact bond (SIBs) have been viewed as a testament to the power of finance and the “financialization” of the social sector, the paper instead highlights the struggles and limits of the SIB enterprise. Informed by a multi-year study of SIBs in Canada, the USA, and UK, and the theoretical lens of the social studies of assetization combined with an ecological approach, these struggles are conceived in terms of the challenge of operationalizing SIBs’ financial imaginary and managing the gaps between finance and the social sector as distinct ecologies. Particular emphasis is placed on three valuation devices—liquidity, risk, and rigor—which are central to this effort. Rather than “hinges” connecting these worlds, these devices have emerged as points of conflict, revealing a distinctly spatial politics which helps to explain the limits not only of SIBs but also other forms of financialization at the frontiers of (social) finance.

show abstract