Abstract

The Financialization Hypothesis is a popular argument in contemporary heterodox and also mainstream economics. It maintains that capitalism has undergone a radical transformation over at least the past three decades. The financial system, through a series of innovative mechanisms, has conquered the commanding heights of capitalism and has changed the whole system according to its own prerogatives. Concomitantly, the global capitalist crisis of 2008 is considered to have been a financialization crisis. This article disputes the Financialization Hypothesis and argues that instead of casting light on the actual workings of modern capitalism, it misconstrues them and leads into an explanatory blind alley. The spectacular ballooning of the financial system during the recent decades of weak profitability and accumulation does not constitute a new epoch, let alone a new capitalism. Instead, it represents a familiar capitalist response to periods of weak profitability. This does not preclude the proliferation of new financial instruments, which lend specific new forms to a well-known capitalist process. The Marxist theory of crisis and fictitious capital offers an analytically and empirically superior understanding of this process.

Highlights

  • The Financialization Hypothesis (FH) is a popular argument in contemporary heterodox economics and we will argue, in mainstream economics

  • The FH does not posit a new epoch of capitalism, but a new capitalism with different classes and different functions

  • The notion that some structural break occurred in the historical evolution of capitalism, after which the financial system conquered the system’s commanding heights, is not new in economic thought

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The Financialization Hypothesis (FH) is a popular argument in contemporary heterodox economics and we will argue, in mainstream economics. Working- and middle-class households depend directly on the financial system, which exploits them through usury and transforms their modes of consumption in line with its prerogatives This new finance-dominated capitalism, as a result of its inherent financial instability, is prone to crises. The other two main capitalist fractions (money and commercial capital) operate in the sphere of circulation and do not produce surplus value; they only reap parts of the surplus value created under productive capital as payment for their necessary functions. In rejecting this perspective, the FH does not posit a new epoch of capitalism, but a new capitalism with different classes and different functions.

The Birth and Evolution of the FH
Mainstream FH
The Post-Keynesian FH
Marxist and Marxisant FH
Classical Marxism versus the FH
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.