Abstract Chapter 5 delves deeper into the concept of “disembeddedness” in the era of finance. It examines the inadequacies of neoliberal risk regulation policies and instruments in protecting against systemic risks and safeguarding consumer interests, highlighting the shortcomings of micro-oriented, information-based regulatory methods and the problems stemming from the fragmented regulatory structure of US financial markets. The chapter argues that the systemic risks and challenges faced by consumers in financial markets, including predatory and unjust practices, are neither inherent to the markets nor solely the result of actions by a few greedy CEOs. Rather, they directly result from specific regulatory choices made by the American government in the three decades preceding the financial crisis.

Abstract Chapter 6 explores the American government’s response to the financial crisis. This crisis raised two pressing issues. The first demanded swift action: How can we halt the financial freefall? The response was a slew of rapid relief and recovery initiatives. The second issue probed deeper into the fundamentals of America’s financialized landscape: How should the system—both its institutions and policies—that faltered so dramatically be reformed? While immediate measures were evident in the distributed relief—its nature, quantity, and recipients—the reformative journey was more protracted and intricate in terms of its legislative process and intended outcomes.

Abstract Chapter 7 concludes by summarizing the book’s primary insights and contributions. It first revisits the components of the neoliberal approach to regulation, explores its political reception starting in the 1970s, and discusses the policies that emerged from it. The chapter then links the regulatory framework to the financialization of the economy, pinpointing where and how risk deficits materialized. Transitioning to the backdrop of the financial crisis, it evaluates the management of these risk deficits in its wake. The chapter concludes by drawing connections between regulatory shifts, financialization, and the implications for democracy.

Abstract This chapter examines the growing political appeal of economic theories of regulation beginning in the early 1970s, when regulation was still largely seen as a beneficial solution in the public’s interest, to be modified only when economic costs outweighed public advantages. The critique against substantial government regulation, emerging within governmental corridors, was of a revisionist and pragmatic bent. Regulatory reform was seen as a tool for controlling inflation and spurring growth, often implying a reduction in regulations and the incorporation of market incentives in congruence with cost–benefit analyses. Later, in the 1980s, the critique evolved into a more systematic stance, with regulation being viewed not as a solution but as the inherent problem. There was a palpable shift in regulatory approach towards privatized decision-making, endorsing concepts of individual rationality and market discipline.

Abstract Chapter 4 delves into the translation of new economic ideas on risk regulation into specific policy tools tailored to a financialized economy. Moving beyond the dominant narrative that links American neoliberalism primarily to deregulation, this chapter unveils a more multifaceted policy transformation from the 1970s onward, which was not a mere reduction of rules but a reimagining of government and market roles in risk mitigation. While deregulation was significant—paving the way for new market entities and instruments—it was just one facet of the shift. As financial markets evolved, presenting new risks, the government’s response was often characterized by a regulatory drift, with existing statutes becoming outdated. When the government stepped in, it did so with a growing focus on market discipline and individual rationality, evident both in its pivot toward a micro-oriented regulation and its embrace of information-based measures.

Abstract Chapter 2 unpacks the core tenets of the neoliberal perspective on regulation. It charts the rise of an intellectual wave in the 1970s and 1980s, marked by figures like Stigler, Peltzman, Buchanan, Tullock, Krueger, Niskanen, and others, that was critical of direct and substantive governmental regulation. It then traces how this anti-statist viewpoint was further fortified in the 1990s by breakthroughs in financial economics and the growing allure of the New Public Management approach to governance. The chapter highlights the transformative role economists have played in molding the contours of the American regulatory state. The chapter also lends a better understanding to the principles guiding the US government’s regulatory approach to a financializing economy.

Abstract Chapter 1 sets the stage for the book’s analysis of the United States government’s role in regulating an economy increasingly dominated by financial activities and institutions. It situates the book within the existing literature on neoliberalism, financialization, and regulation. The chapter highlights the nature of neoliberal risk protection and mitigation, underscoring its shortcomings and thereby building a Polanyian account of disembeddedness in the age of finance. In doing so, the chapter also provides a framework for thinking about the financial crisis and post-crisis reforms. Overall, Chapter 1 positions the book within the broader academic discourse, highlighting its key findings and contributions.

AIM: To develop and evaluate the validity and reliability of a knowledge, attitude, and practice questionnaire related to vision screening (KAP-VST) among preschool teachers in Malaysia. METHODS: The questionnaire was developed through a literature review and discussions with experts. Content and face validation were conducted by a panel of experts (n=10) and preschool teachers (n=10), respectively. A pilot study was conducted for construct validation (n=161) and test-retest reliability (n=60) of the newly developed questionnaire. RESULTS: Based on the content and face validation, 71 items were generated, and 68 items were selected after exploratory factor analysis. The content validity index for items (I-CVI) score ranged from 0.8-1.0, and the content validity index for scale (S-CVI)/Ave was 0.99. Internal consistency was KR20=0.93 for knowledge, Cronbach’s alpha=0.758 for attitude, and Cronbach’s alpha=0.856 for practice. CONCLUSION: The KAP-VST is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing knowledge, attitude, and practice in relation to vision screening among preschool teachers in Malaysia.

Abstract Theological interpretation of Scripture and public theology have so far said very little to one another. To a certain extent, this is understandable, as the two are involved in separate projects with differing priorities and questions. However, a mutually beneficial dialogue is possible. Public theology has yet to devote significant attention to the role of Scripture in public engagement and theological interpretation provides a framework better suited than historical criticism for allowing the Bible to speak to current situations. In return, public theology can help theological interpretation to clarify the public nature of the ecclesial community through the development of a public ecclesiology in order to better hear the voice of God in Scripture through a more holistic theological reading, one with a thicker defense against ecclesial tendencies toward authoritarianism and privatism. In establishing the possibility of a mutually beneficial relationship, this article provides a rationale for the relationship between public theology and theological interpretation to begin outright.