an article by Stephen Hall, Simon Shepherd and Zia Wadud (University of Leeds, UK) and Andrew EG Jonas (University of Hull, UK) published in Urban Studies Volume 56 Issue 7 (May 2019)
Abstract
This article explores a tension between financialisation of electricity infrastructures and efforts to bring critical urban systems into common ownership.
Focusing on the emerging landscape of electricity regulation and e-mobility in the United Kingdom (UK), it examines how electricity grid ownership has become financialised, and why the economic assumptions that enabled this financialisation are being called into question.
New technologies, such as smart electricity meters and electric vehicles, provide cities with new tools to tackle poor air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Electricity grids are key enabling infrastructures but the companies that run them do not get rewarded for improving air quality or tackling climate change.
UK government regulation of electricity grids both enables financialisation and forecloses opportunities to manage the infrastructure for wider environmental and public benefit.
Nonetheless, the addition of smart devices to this network – the ‘smart grid’ – opens up an opportunity for common ownership of the infrastructure. Transforming the smart grid into commons necessitates deep structural reform to the entire architecture of infrastructure regulation in the UK.
Showing posts with label financialisation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label financialisation. Show all posts
Thursday, 9 May 2019
Monday, 18 March 2019
Should Basic Payment Accounts Be Extended?
an article by Rajiv Prabhakar (The Open University) published in Journal of Poverty and Social Justice Volume 27 Number 1 (February 2019)
Abstract
Reducing the 'unbanked' is an important part of financial inclusion. For its supporters, access to a bank account is important for reducing the costs faced by those locked out of mainstream banking.
Critics worry that financial inclusion ultimately shifts people from the security of the welfare state to the insecurity of financial markets. This paper argues that reducing the unbanked can contribute to both individual empowerment and subjection.
Much depends upon how such policies are devised.
Abstract
Reducing the 'unbanked' is an important part of financial inclusion. For its supporters, access to a bank account is important for reducing the costs faced by those locked out of mainstream banking.
Critics worry that financial inclusion ultimately shifts people from the security of the welfare state to the insecurity of financial markets. This paper argues that reducing the unbanked can contribute to both individual empowerment and subjection.
Much depends upon how such policies are devised.
Tuesday, 14 February 2017
Valorised but not valued? Affective remuneration, social reproduction and feminist politics beyond the crisis
an article by Emma Dowling (Middlesex University, London, UK) published in British Politics Volume 11 Issue 4 (December 2016)
Abstract
This paper proposes an analytical distinction between modes of valorising and modes of valuing social reproduction to suggest that a conflict between these two opposing modes lies at the heart of an on-going crisis of social reproduction in the face of purported economic recovery, where unpaid reproductive labour constitutes a source of surplus value.
A systemic imperative to expand markets in the pursuit of profitability goes hand in hand with a devaluation of social reproduction, either by making this work invisible or by externalising its cost.
This article analyses the specificities of this process in the context of contemporary Britain and investigates the role of the state, focusing on volunteering and new forms of ‘affective remuneration’ linked to financialisation and the connection between social reproduction and wealth extraction.
In conclusion, the paper outlines the contours of possible counter-practices informed by a feminist politics.
Abstract
This paper proposes an analytical distinction between modes of valorising and modes of valuing social reproduction to suggest that a conflict between these two opposing modes lies at the heart of an on-going crisis of social reproduction in the face of purported economic recovery, where unpaid reproductive labour constitutes a source of surplus value.
A systemic imperative to expand markets in the pursuit of profitability goes hand in hand with a devaluation of social reproduction, either by making this work invisible or by externalising its cost.
This article analyses the specificities of this process in the context of contemporary Britain and investigates the role of the state, focusing on volunteering and new forms of ‘affective remuneration’ linked to financialisation and the connection between social reproduction and wealth extraction.
In conclusion, the paper outlines the contours of possible counter-practices informed by a feminist politics.
Wednesday, 30 November 2016
Payday lending in the UK: the regul(aris)ation of a necessary evil?
an article by Karen Rowlingson (University of Birmingham, UK), Lindsey Appleyard (Coventry University, UK) and Jodi Gardner (Corpus Christi College, Oxford, UK) published in Journal of Social Policy Volume 45, Issue 3 (July 2016)
Abstract
Concern about the increasing use of payday lending led the UK's Financial Conduct Authority to introduce landmark reforms in 2014/15. While these reforms have generally been welcomed as a way of curbing ‘extortionate’ and ‘predatory’ lending, this paper presents a more nuanced picture based on a theoretically-informed analysis of the growth and nature of payday lending combined with original and rigorous qualitative interviews with customers.
We argue that payday lending has grown as a result of three major and inter-related trends: growing income insecurity for people both in and out of work; cuts in state welfare provision; and increasing financialisation.
Recent reforms of payday lending do nothing to tackle these root causes.
Our research also makes a major contribution to debates about the ‘everyday life’ of financialisation by focusing on the ‘lived experience’ of borrowers. We show that, contrary to the rather simplistic picture presented by the media and many campaigners, various aspects of payday lending are actually welcomed by customers, given the situations they are in.
Tighter regulation may therefore have negative consequences for some. More generally, we argue that the regul(aris)ation of payday lending reinforces the shift in the role of the state from provider/redistributor to regulator/enabler.
Full text (HTML)
Abstract
Concern about the increasing use of payday lending led the UK's Financial Conduct Authority to introduce landmark reforms in 2014/15. While these reforms have generally been welcomed as a way of curbing ‘extortionate’ and ‘predatory’ lending, this paper presents a more nuanced picture based on a theoretically-informed analysis of the growth and nature of payday lending combined with original and rigorous qualitative interviews with customers.
We argue that payday lending has grown as a result of three major and inter-related trends: growing income insecurity for people both in and out of work; cuts in state welfare provision; and increasing financialisation.
Recent reforms of payday lending do nothing to tackle these root causes.
Our research also makes a major contribution to debates about the ‘everyday life’ of financialisation by focusing on the ‘lived experience’ of borrowers. We show that, contrary to the rather simplistic picture presented by the media and many campaigners, various aspects of payday lending are actually welcomed by customers, given the situations they are in.
Tighter regulation may therefore have negative consequences for some. More generally, we argue that the regul(aris)ation of payday lending reinforces the shift in the role of the state from provider/redistributor to regulator/enabler.
Full text (HTML)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
