Reinventing the wheel? Or adding new air to old tires?

Abstract

Brett Christophers’ nuanced critique of the concept of financialization provides a useful check on its exuberant adoption within human geography and other disciplines. While acknowledging the article’s important and timely intervention, I question Christophers’ overriding concern with financialization’s lack of novelty. Drawing examples from the financialization of land, I argue that the (undeniable) existence of historical parallels and prior theorizations does not automatically invalidate the term. Instead, the central challenge for researchers is how to place the current wave of financialization within historical context, acknowledging both continuity and novelty.