The Experts below are selected from a list of 18504 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Larry Neal - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a concise history of international finance from babylon to bernanke
2015Co-Authors: Larry NealAbstract:1. Introduction 2. Distant beginnings: the first 3,000 years 3. The Italians invent modern finance 4. The rise of international Financial Capitalism: the seventeenth century 5. The 'big bang' of Financial Capitalism: financing and refinancing the Mississippi and South Sea Companies, 1688-1720 6. The rise and spread of Financial Capitalism, 1720-89 7. Financial innovations during the 'birth of the modern', 1789-1830: a tale of three revolutions 8. British recovery and attempts to imitate in the US, France and Germany, 1825-50 9. Financial globalization takes off: the spread of sterling and the rise of the gold standard, 1848-79 10. The first global Financial market and the classical gold standard, 1880-1914 11. The Thirty Years War and the disruption of international finance, 1914-44 12. The Bretton Woods era and the re-emergence of global finance, 1945-73 13. From turmoil to the 'Great Moderation', 1973-2007 14. The sub-prime crisis and the aftermath, 2007-14 References Index.
-
share portfolios in the early years of Financial Capitalism london 1690 1730
The Economic History Review, 2015Co-Authors: Ann M Carlos, Erin K Fletcher, Larry NealAbstract:The dramatic expansion of public and private Financial markets in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution has received extensive attention. Despite this, little is known about how ordinary individual investors managed risk within this framework. Using a newly constructed dataset of share ownership for those joint-stock companies listed in the Financial press of the day, we reconstruct individual portfolio holdings for investors in these companies. We examine individual portfolio holdings first for the decade after the Glorious Revolution and then for the years around the South Sea Bubble. Despite a fivefold increase in the number of unique individuals in the market between the 1690s and the 1720s, we find that in each period roughly 80 per cent of those active in the equity market held shares in only one company, even though many shareholders had the capacity or wealth to diversify share portfolios. These outcomes suggest diversification against idiosyncratic liquidity risk. Overall, however, there is limited evidence that individuals were using their Financial portfolios to protect against diversifiable shocks. For many, we argue, company-specific voting and firm governance rules drove market activity.
-
share portfolios in the early years of Financial Capitalism london
Social Science Research Network, 2015Co-Authors: Ann M Carlos, Erin K Fletcher, Larry NealAbstract:The dramatic expansion of public and private Financial markets in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution has received extensive attention. Despite this, little is known about how ordinary individual investors managed risk within this framework. Using a newly constructed dataset of share ownership for those joint-stock companies listed in the Financial press of the day, we reconstruct individual portfolio holdings for investors in these companies.We examine individual portfolio holdings first for the decade after the Glorious Revolution and then for the years around the South Sea Bubble. Despite a fivefold increase in the number of unique individuals in the market between the 1690s and the 1720s, we find that in each period roughly 80 per cent of those active in the equity market held shares in only one company, even though many shareholders had the capacity or wealth to diversify share portfolios.These outcomes suggest diversification against idiosyncratic liquidity risk. Overall, however, there is limited evidence that individuals were using their Financial portfolios to protect against diversifiable shocks. For many, we argue, company-specific voting and firm governance rules drove market activity.
-
share portfolios and risk management in the early years of Financial Capitalism london 1690 1730
Research Papers in Economics, 2012Co-Authors: Ann M Carlos, Erin K Fletcher, Larry NealAbstract:The dramatic expansion of public and private Financial markets in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution has received extensive attention. Despite interest in the operation of the capital market, much less is known about how ordinary individual investors managed risk within this framework. Using a newly constructed data set of share ownership for each company listed in the Financial press of the day, we reconstruct individual portfolio holdings for all investors in these companies. We examine individual portfolio holdings first for the decade after the Glorious Revolution and then for the years around the South Sea Bubble of 1720. We also examine holdings over time. Despite a fivefold increase in the number of unique individuals in the market between the 1690s and the 1720s, we find that in each period roughly eighty per cent of those active in the equity market owned shares in only one company, even though most shareholders had the capacity or wealth to diversity their share portfolios. We also find some continuity in the market with forty per cent of those who owned stock in 1690 holding stock two decades later. This level of stock market activity suggests that individuals were diversifying against idiosyncratic liquidity risk. Overall, however, there is limited evidence that individuals were using their Financial portfolios to increase income or reduce risk or to protect themselves against diversifiable shocks. Clearly some part of this behaviour can be explained by low levels of Financial literacy, for many, however, company specific voting rules with their attendant effects on firm governance drove market activity.
-
the rise of Financial Capitalism international capital markets in the age of reason
2010Co-Authors: Larry NealAbstract:1. Historical background for the rise of Financial Capitalism: commercial revolution, rise of nation states, and capital markets 2. The development of an information network and the international capital markets of London and Amsterdam 3. The early capital markets of London and Amsterdam 4. The Banque Royale and the South Sea Company: how the bubbles began 4. Appendix: were the Mississippi and south sea bubbles rational? 5. The Bank of England and the South Sea Company: how the bubbles ended 6. The English and Dutch East India Companies: how the west was won 7. The integration of the English and Dutch capital markets in peace and war 8. The English and Dutch capital markets in panics 9. The capital markets during revolutions, war and peace 10. A tale of two revolutions: international capital flows 1792-1819 11. The London and Amsterdam stock markets, 1800-1825.
Ann M Carlos - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
share portfolios in the early years of Financial Capitalism london 1690 1730
The Economic History Review, 2015Co-Authors: Ann M Carlos, Erin K Fletcher, Larry NealAbstract:The dramatic expansion of public and private Financial markets in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution has received extensive attention. Despite this, little is known about how ordinary individual investors managed risk within this framework. Using a newly constructed dataset of share ownership for those joint-stock companies listed in the Financial press of the day, we reconstruct individual portfolio holdings for investors in these companies. We examine individual portfolio holdings first for the decade after the Glorious Revolution and then for the years around the South Sea Bubble. Despite a fivefold increase in the number of unique individuals in the market between the 1690s and the 1720s, we find that in each period roughly 80 per cent of those active in the equity market held shares in only one company, even though many shareholders had the capacity or wealth to diversify share portfolios. These outcomes suggest diversification against idiosyncratic liquidity risk. Overall, however, there is limited evidence that individuals were using their Financial portfolios to protect against diversifiable shocks. For many, we argue, company-specific voting and firm governance rules drove market activity.
-
share portfolios in the early years of Financial Capitalism london
Social Science Research Network, 2015Co-Authors: Ann M Carlos, Erin K Fletcher, Larry NealAbstract:The dramatic expansion of public and private Financial markets in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution has received extensive attention. Despite this, little is known about how ordinary individual investors managed risk within this framework. Using a newly constructed dataset of share ownership for those joint-stock companies listed in the Financial press of the day, we reconstruct individual portfolio holdings for investors in these companies.We examine individual portfolio holdings first for the decade after the Glorious Revolution and then for the years around the South Sea Bubble. Despite a fivefold increase in the number of unique individuals in the market between the 1690s and the 1720s, we find that in each period roughly 80 per cent of those active in the equity market held shares in only one company, even though many shareholders had the capacity or wealth to diversify share portfolios.These outcomes suggest diversification against idiosyncratic liquidity risk. Overall, however, there is limited evidence that individuals were using their Financial portfolios to protect against diversifiable shocks. For many, we argue, company-specific voting and firm governance rules drove market activity.
-
share portfolios and risk management in the early years of Financial Capitalism london 1690 1730
Research Papers in Economics, 2012Co-Authors: Ann M Carlos, Erin K Fletcher, Larry NealAbstract:The dramatic expansion of public and private Financial markets in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution has received extensive attention. Despite interest in the operation of the capital market, much less is known about how ordinary individual investors managed risk within this framework. Using a newly constructed data set of share ownership for each company listed in the Financial press of the day, we reconstruct individual portfolio holdings for all investors in these companies. We examine individual portfolio holdings first for the decade after the Glorious Revolution and then for the years around the South Sea Bubble of 1720. We also examine holdings over time. Despite a fivefold increase in the number of unique individuals in the market between the 1690s and the 1720s, we find that in each period roughly eighty per cent of those active in the equity market owned shares in only one company, even though most shareholders had the capacity or wealth to diversity their share portfolios. We also find some continuity in the market with forty per cent of those who owned stock in 1690 holding stock two decades later. This level of stock market activity suggests that individuals were diversifying against idiosyncratic liquidity risk. Overall, however, there is limited evidence that individuals were using their Financial portfolios to increase income or reduce risk or to protect themselves against diversifiable shocks. Clearly some part of this behaviour can be explained by low levels of Financial literacy, for many, however, company specific voting rules with their attendant effects on firm governance drove market activity.
Erin K Fletcher - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
share portfolios in the early years of Financial Capitalism london 1690 1730
The Economic History Review, 2015Co-Authors: Ann M Carlos, Erin K Fletcher, Larry NealAbstract:The dramatic expansion of public and private Financial markets in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution has received extensive attention. Despite this, little is known about how ordinary individual investors managed risk within this framework. Using a newly constructed dataset of share ownership for those joint-stock companies listed in the Financial press of the day, we reconstruct individual portfolio holdings for investors in these companies. We examine individual portfolio holdings first for the decade after the Glorious Revolution and then for the years around the South Sea Bubble. Despite a fivefold increase in the number of unique individuals in the market between the 1690s and the 1720s, we find that in each period roughly 80 per cent of those active in the equity market held shares in only one company, even though many shareholders had the capacity or wealth to diversify share portfolios. These outcomes suggest diversification against idiosyncratic liquidity risk. Overall, however, there is limited evidence that individuals were using their Financial portfolios to protect against diversifiable shocks. For many, we argue, company-specific voting and firm governance rules drove market activity.
-
share portfolios in the early years of Financial Capitalism london
Social Science Research Network, 2015Co-Authors: Ann M Carlos, Erin K Fletcher, Larry NealAbstract:The dramatic expansion of public and private Financial markets in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution has received extensive attention. Despite this, little is known about how ordinary individual investors managed risk within this framework. Using a newly constructed dataset of share ownership for those joint-stock companies listed in the Financial press of the day, we reconstruct individual portfolio holdings for investors in these companies.We examine individual portfolio holdings first for the decade after the Glorious Revolution and then for the years around the South Sea Bubble. Despite a fivefold increase in the number of unique individuals in the market between the 1690s and the 1720s, we find that in each period roughly 80 per cent of those active in the equity market held shares in only one company, even though many shareholders had the capacity or wealth to diversify share portfolios.These outcomes suggest diversification against idiosyncratic liquidity risk. Overall, however, there is limited evidence that individuals were using their Financial portfolios to protect against diversifiable shocks. For many, we argue, company-specific voting and firm governance rules drove market activity.
-
share portfolios and risk management in the early years of Financial Capitalism london 1690 1730
Research Papers in Economics, 2012Co-Authors: Ann M Carlos, Erin K Fletcher, Larry NealAbstract:The dramatic expansion of public and private Financial markets in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution has received extensive attention. Despite interest in the operation of the capital market, much less is known about how ordinary individual investors managed risk within this framework. Using a newly constructed data set of share ownership for each company listed in the Financial press of the day, we reconstruct individual portfolio holdings for all investors in these companies. We examine individual portfolio holdings first for the decade after the Glorious Revolution and then for the years around the South Sea Bubble of 1720. We also examine holdings over time. Despite a fivefold increase in the number of unique individuals in the market between the 1690s and the 1720s, we find that in each period roughly eighty per cent of those active in the equity market owned shares in only one company, even though most shareholders had the capacity or wealth to diversity their share portfolios. We also find some continuity in the market with forty per cent of those who owned stock in 1690 holding stock two decades later. This level of stock market activity suggests that individuals were diversifying against idiosyncratic liquidity risk. Overall, however, there is limited evidence that individuals were using their Financial portfolios to increase income or reduce risk or to protect themselves against diversifiable shocks. Clearly some part of this behaviour can be explained by low levels of Financial literacy, for many, however, company specific voting rules with their attendant effects on firm governance drove market activity.
Moine Florian - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Casterman (1919-1999) : une entreprise du livre, entre Belgique et France
HAL CCSD, 2020Co-Authors: Moine FlorianAbstract:This monograph of Casterman publishing and printing house draws the book business changes from aftermath of the Great War until globalization and editorial concentration that marked, in the end of 20th century, publishing in French language. Casterman is generally associated with the Hergé’s Aventures de Tintin publishing for which commercial and critical success overwrite a first historical analysis of one of the most important and old book company from French Community of Belgium. However, the wealth of Casterman's archives, kept now in the Belgian state archives of Tournai, allows for a global approach to the company and its editorial production. Our work portray an employer dynasty in books of remarkable longevity and sheds light on transformations of company‘s structure and productive apparatus as well as its territorial anchorage in Tournai, near the French border. In the same time, our thesis highlight the editorial catalogue inflections, from piety books release in interwar period to specialization in comic books. In 1919, the brothers Louis and Gérard Casterman arrival, representatives of fifth employer generation in the century-old family firm, matched for a new cycle of growth for the company. In 1925, contract obtainment to print the Belgian telephone directories provided a new dynamic for the printing press, while the publishing house invested children's publishing market, notably by means of Hergé's albums. The colossal success of the Aventures de Tintin after albums colorization initiated in 1942 changed the gravity centre of the catalogue. Driven by Hergé’s success, Casterman became one of the primary French-speaking publishers for children during 1950-1970 years, while maintaining a significant religious-based production with moral education books and La Revue nouvelle. In this time, the company based its growth on development simultaneous and supplementary of its editorial structure on border both sides and of its printing in Tournai. In 1978, while facing the collapse of denominational publishing and the need to renew its production, the publishing house made a singular shift leading to comic books non-conformist and intend for adults with publication of monthly (À Suivre). In last third of the twentieth century, the Casterman model of family publisher-printer was weakening by book economy changes in Financial Capitalism era, rapid technological changes in printing press under effect of computerization and shareholding dilution, until sale of the publishing house to French group Flammarion in 1999.Cette monographie de la maison d’édition et d’imprimerie Casterman retrace les mutations d’une entreprise du livre depuis les lendemains de la Grande Guerre jusqu’aux processus de globalisation et de concentration éditoriale qui caractérisent l’édition francophone à la fin du XXe siècle. Casterman est généralement associée à la publication des Aventures de Tintin d’Hergé, dont le succès commercial et la postérité critique écrasent en première analyse l’histoire de l’une des plus anciennes et des plus importantes entreprises du livre de Belgique francophone. Or la richesse des archives de Casterman, conservées aux archives de l’État belge à Tournai, autorise une approche globalisante de l’entreprise et de sa production éditoriale. Notre travail dresse le portrait d’une dynastie patronale du livre à la longévité remarquable et éclaire les transformations de la structure et de l’appareil productif de l’entreprise ainsi que son ancrage territorial à Tournai, à proximité de la frontière française. Parallèlement, notre thèse met au jour les inflexions du catalogue éditorial, depuis l’édition de livres de piété dans l’entre-deux-guerres jusqu’à la spécialisation dans la bande dessinée. L’arrivée en 1919 des frères Louis et Gérard Casterman, représentants de la cinquième génération d’entrepreneurs de la firme familiale centenaire, correspond à un nouveau cycle de croissance pour l’entreprise. L’obtention en 1925 du contrat d’impression des annuaires téléphoniques belges offre une nouvelle dynamique à l’imprimerie quand la maison d’édition investit le marché de l’édition enfantine en publiant notamment les albums d’Hergé. Le succès colossal des Aventures de Tintin après la mise en couleurs des albums initiée en 1942 change le centre de gravité du catalogue. Porté par le succès d’Hergé, Casterman devient l’un des principaux éditeurs francophones de l’enfance durant les Trente Glorieuses tout en conservant une importante production confessionnelle centrée autour de livres d’éducation morale et de La Revue nouvelle. À cette époque, l’entreprise fonde sa croissance sur le développement parallèle et complémentaire de sa structure éditoriale des deux côtés de la frontière et de son imprimerie à Tournai. Confrontée à l’effondrement de l’édition confessionnelle et à la nécessité de renouveler sa production, la maison d’édition réalise en 1978 un virage singulier en direction d’une bande dessinée non-conformiste destinée aux adultes avec la publication du mensuel (À Suivre). Les transformations de l’économie du livre à l’heure du Capitalisme financier, les mutations technologiques rapides de l’imprimerie sous l’effet de l’informatisation et la dilution de l’actionnariat fragilisent dans le dernier tiers du XXe siècle affaiblissent le modèle de l’éditeur-imprimeur familial de Casterman jusqu’à la vente de la maison d’édition au groupe français Flammarion en 1999
-
Casterman (1919-1999) : a book company between France and Belgium
2020Co-Authors: Moine FlorianAbstract:Cette monographie de la maison d’édition et d’imprimerie Casterman retrace les mutations d’une entreprise du livre depuis les lendemains de la Grande Guerre jusqu’aux processus de globalisation et de concentration éditoriale qui caractérisent l’édition francophone à la fin du XXe siècle. Casterman est généralement associée à la publication des Aventures de Tintin d’Hergé, dont le succès commercial et la postérité critique écrasent en première analyse l’histoire de l’une des plus anciennes et des plus importantes entreprises du livre de Belgique francophone. Or la richesse des archives de Casterman, conservées aux archives de l’État belge à Tournai, autorise une approche globalisante de l’entreprise et de sa production éditoriale. Notre travail dresse le portrait d’une dynastie patronale du livre à la longévité remarquable et éclaire les transformations de la structure et de l’appareil productif de l’entreprise ainsi que son ancrage territorial à Tournai, à proximité de la frontière française. Parallèlement, notre thèse met au jour les inflexions du catalogue éditorial, depuis l’édition de livres de piété dans l’entre-deux-guerres jusqu’à la spécialisation dans la bande dessinée. L’arrivée en 1919 des frères Louis et Gérard Casterman, représentants de la cinquième génération d’entrepreneurs de la firme familiale centenaire, correspond à un nouveau cycle de croissance pour l’entreprise. L’obtention en 1925 du contrat d’impression des annuaires téléphoniques belges offre une nouvelle dynamique à l’imprimerie quand la maison d’édition investit le marché de l’édition enfantine en publiant notamment les albums d’Hergé. Le succès colossal des Aventures de Tintin après la mise en couleurs des albums initiée en 1942 change le centre de gravité du catalogue. Porté par le succès d’Hergé, Casterman devient l’un des principaux éditeurs francophones de l’enfance durant les Trente Glorieuses tout en conservant une importante production confessionnelle centrée autour de livres d’éducation morale et de La Revue nouvelle. À cette époque, l’entreprise fonde sa croissance sur le développement parallèle et complémentaire de sa structure éditoriale des deux côtés de la frontière et de son imprimerie à Tournai. Confrontée à l’effondrement de l’édition confessionnelle et à la nécessité de renouveler sa production, la maison d’édition réalise en 1978 un virage singulier en direction d’une bande dessinée non-conformiste destinée aux adultes avec la publication du mensuel (À Suivre). Les transformations de l’économie du livre à l’heure du Capitalisme financier, les mutations technologiques rapides de l’imprimerie sous l’effet de l’informatisation et la dilution de l’actionnariat fragilisent dans le dernier tiers du XXe siècle affaiblissent le modèle de l’éditeur-imprimeur familial de Casterman jusqu’à la vente de la maison d’édition au groupe français Flammarion en 1999.This monograph of Casterman publishing and printing house draws the book business changes from aftermath of the Great War until globalization and editorial concentration that marked, in the end of 20th century, publishing in French language. Casterman is generally associated with the Hergé’s Aventures de Tintin publishing for which commercial and critical success overwrite a first historical analysis of one of the most important and old book company from French Community of Belgium. However, the wealth of Casterman's archives, kept now in the Belgian state archives of Tournai, allows for a global approach to the company and its editorial production. Our work portray an employer dynasty in books of remarkable longevity and sheds light on transformations of company‘s structure and productive apparatus as well as its territorial anchorage in Tournai, near the French border. In the same time, our thesis highlight the editorial catalogue inflections, from piety books release in interwar period to specialization in comic books. In 1919, the brothers Louis and Gérard Casterman arrival, representatives of fifth employer generation in the century-old family firm, matched for a new cycle of growth for the company. In 1925, contract obtainment to print the Belgian telephone directories provided a new dynamic for the printing press, while the publishing house invested children's publishing market, notably by means of Hergé's albums. The colossal success of the Aventures de Tintin after albums colorization initiated in 1942 changed the gravity centre of the catalogue. Driven by Hergé’s success, Casterman became one of the primary French-speaking publishers for children during 1950-1970 years, while maintaining a significant religious-based production with moral education books and La Revue nouvelle. In this time, the company based its growth on development simultaneous and supplementary of its editorial structure on border both sides and of its printing in Tournai. In 1978, while facing the collapse of denominational publishing and the need to renew its production, the publishing house made a singular shift leading to comic books non-conformist and intend for adults with publication of monthly (À Suivre). In last third of the twentieth century, the Casterman model of family publisher-printer was weakening by book economy changes in Financial Capitalism era, rapid technological changes in printing press under effect of computerization and shareholding dilution, until sale of the publishing house to French group Flammarion in 1999
Miscione Gianluca - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Bitcoin and the Blockchain: a coup d'état in Digital Heterotopia?
'Elsevier BV', 2015Co-Authors: Kavanagh Donncha, Miscione GianlucaAbstract:The 9th International Conference in Critical Management Studies: Is there an alternative? Management After Critique, University of Leicester, United Kingdom, 8-10 July, 2015This conference invites us to explore new organisational forms and practices that might be alternatives to 'neoliberal market managerialism' and 'Financial Capitalism'. Our starting point is that the latter two phenomena cannot be separated off analytically from powerful actors — such as the state — that have co-emerged with and played a key role in the evolutionary process through which Capitalism has come to be (Graeber 2011). Specifically, this paper takes its move from Hobbes’s (1651/2005) idea of the Leviathan, which has provided a foundational intellectual basis for the nation-state form, which is today ubiquitous, and on which both neoliberalism and Financial Capitalism are reliant. Hobbes rooted his construct in a pessimistic view of humankind that is naturally inclined towards the 'war of all against all'. He argued that people must recognize that such a 'state of nature' is destructive, and must accept, on the basis of utilitarian reasoning, the necessity of a social contract to constitute a supreme actor whose power is absolute and enforced by a monopoly on violence. Hence, the Leviathan and the body politic are constituted at once and are irreversible. No exit is allowed; no ethical, moral or religious limit can be posed in front of this power. The Leviathan is total because there is no room for any other rationality, and finite because all people are tied to the social contract. Hobbes’s idea of the Leviathan has proved to be enduring and alluring, and provides a primary focus for this paper. What is especially interesting for us is that cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin have emerged from a similar 'thought experiment' beginning with a 'state of nature' not unlike Hobbes’s depiction. Here, the seminal contribution is by the mysterious individual or individuals known as Satoshi Nakamoto who, in 2008, published a paper that set out the basis for the 'blockchain technology' on which cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, and other services, are based (Nakamoto 2008). Not unlike Hobbes’s 'state of nature', Nakamoto begins with an imaginary world populated by trustless individuals. The problem he addresses is how to enable trustworthy transactions on the internet without recourse to a 'trusted third party', such as a state-regulated (and state-supported) bank. Indeed, in line with libertarian ideology, one of Nakamoto’s key objectives was to preclude the possibility of any single and all-encompassing ruling authority emerging. His elegant solution is Bitcoin, a purely digital cryptocurrency that is not administered by any constituted organization and is not circumscribed within any consistent jurisdiction. The 'blockchain', on which Bitcoin is based, is a public ledger of transactions maintained by a dispersed and open-ended number of 'miners' who provide computing power to maintain and guarantee the integrity of the ledger. While the Bitcoin economy is tiny compared to official currencies — but remarkable compared to alternative and local currencies — it plants the seeds of a currency (intended as a mode of regulating transactions) that could threaten many of the quasi-monopoly powers that the state currently exercises through the central bank, viz: surveying and collecting data on citizens and corporations, setting credit rates and monetary policy, deciding on and implementing exchange rate policies, assuring the robustness of the payment infrastructure, protecting the interests of consumers, controlling money-laundering, and regulating/supporting existing Financial service providers (Murphy 2014). Nakamoto’s attempt to create a money system without a central authority is best seen at the intersection of diachronic and synchronic issues. Historically, the blockchain is one of a long string of information technologies that, since the 1960s, have avoided centralization, partly as a defence against possible Soviet nuclear attack, and partly in sympathy with the Western open culture of the 1960s and 1970s. In relation to contemporary phenomena, Bitcoin entangles with the state’s power and jurisdiction, which is simultaenously being challenged by the shadow economy, by individuals and corporations choosing where they wish to pay tax, by the free flow of information within trans-national information infrastructures, and by global internet services and commerce. While Hobbes and Nakamoto start from similar positions, they end up in quite different destinations, and, since theory can be performative (Austin 1970), this means that very different worlds come to be. Analytically, each provides a lens through which one can examine the other, in theory and in practice. Together, the lenses provide a framing device for reimagining key concepts and practices that underpin the contemporary nation-state and, by extension, Financial Capitalism. The full paper will report on this comparative analysis. The Bitcoin phenomenon raises interesting methodological and theoretical points that we will also explore in the paper. Methodologically, the actor-network injunction to 'follow the actors' — i.e. focus on performance — is practically impossible due to the sheer scale, technical intricacies, global dispersion and far-fetched effects of currency-related phenomena. Focusing on visible performance is also misleading theoretically because it fails to distinguish between what does not happen, those 'influences which operate behind the back of agents, and which therefore cannot be found in micro-situations' (Knorr-Cetina 1981: 28), and what is purposefully avoided (Law and Singleton 2005). Indeed, Bitcoin is a manifestation of a totem of digital cultures: there is always an elsewhere, beyond the control of organizations. Creating an elsewhere free from Leviathan’s constraints (which resonates with Foucault’s notion of heterotopia) disrupts the body politic by exceeding or overflowing its framings (Callon 1998). The peculiarity of Bitcoin is not in any frontal clash with authority but rather in its strategy of avoidance, which we might interpret as a form of différance or the playing of an alternative game. What Bitcoin also illustrates is that the link between the micro and the macro is neither based on an immutable social contract nor maintained by an unbounded power. Rather, scalable and publicly accessible computing resources coordinate trustless macro actions without necessarily constituting actors and identities (Czarniawska 2008/2014). The paper will further examine the paradox where the supplement of the age of visibility is action without actors and the emergence of new boundaries between frontstage and backstage, public and secret
-
Bitcoin and the Blockchain: a coup d\u27état in Digital Heterotopia?
2015Co-Authors: Kavanagh Donncha, Miscione GianlucaAbstract:The 9th International Conference in Critical Management Studies: Is there an alternative? Management After Critique, University of Leicester, United Kingdom, 8-10 July, 2015This conference invites us to explore new organisational forms and practices that might be alternatives to \u27neoliberal market managerialism\u27 and \u27Financial Capitalism\u27. Our starting point is that the latter two phenomena cannot be separated off analytically from powerful actors — such as the state — that have co-emerged with and played a key role in the evolutionary process through which Capitalism has come to be (Graeber 2011). Specifically, this paper takes its move from Hobbes’s (1651/2005) idea of the Leviathan, which has provided a foundational intellectual basis for the nation-state form, which is today ubiquitous, and on which both neoliberalism and Financial Capitalism are reliant. Hobbes rooted his construct in a pessimistic view of humankind that is naturally inclined towards the \u27war of all against all\u27. He argued that people must recognize that such a \u27state of nature\u27 is destructive, and must accept, on the basis of utilitarian reasoning, the necessity of a social contract to constitute a supreme actor whose power is absolute and enforced by a monopoly on violence. Hence, the Leviathan and the body politic are constituted at once and are irreversible. No exit is allowed; no ethical, moral or religious limit can be posed in front of this power. The Leviathan is total because there is no room for any other rationality, and finite because all people are tied to the social contract. Hobbes’s idea of the Leviathan has proved to be enduring and alluring, and provides a primary focus for this paper. What is especially interesting for us is that cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin have emerged from a similar \u27thought experiment\u27 beginning with a \u27state of nature\u27 not unlike Hobbes’s depiction. Here, the seminal contribution is by the mysterious individual or individuals known as Satoshi Nakamoto who, in 2008, published a paper that set out the basis for the \u27blockchain technology\u27 on which cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, and other services, are based (Nakamoto 2008). Not unlike Hobbes’s \u27state of nature\u27, Nakamoto begins with an imaginary world populated by trustless individuals. The problem he addresses is how to enable trustworthy transactions on the internet without recourse to a \u27trusted third party\u27, such as a state-regulated (and state-supported) bank. Indeed, in line with libertarian ideology, one of Nakamoto’s key objectives was to preclude the possibility of any single and all-encompassing ruling authority emerging. His elegant solution is Bitcoin, a purely digital cryptocurrency that is not administered by any constituted organization and is not circumscribed within any consistent jurisdiction. The \u27blockchain\u27, on which Bitcoin is based, is a public ledger of transactions maintained by a dispersed and open-ended number of \u27miners\u27 who provide computing power to maintain and guarantee the integrity of the ledger. While the Bitcoin economy is tiny compared to official currencies — but remarkable compared to alternative and local currencies — it plants the seeds of a currency (intended as a mode of regulating transactions) that could threaten many of the quasi-monopoly powers that the state currently exercises through the central bank, viz: surveying and collecting data on citizens and corporations, setting credit rates and monetary policy, deciding on and implementing exchange rate policies, assuring the robustness of the payment infrastructure, protecting the interests of consumers, controlling money-laundering, and regulating/supporting existing Financial service providers (Murphy 2014). Nakamoto’s attempt to create a money system without a central authority is best seen at the intersection of diachronic and synchronic issues. Historically, the blockchain is one of a long string of information technologies that, since the 1960s, have avoided centralization, partly as a defence against possible Soviet nuclear attack, and partly in sympathy with the Western open culture of the 1960s and 1970s. In relation to contemporary phenomena, Bitcoin entangles with the state’s power and jurisdiction, which is simultaenously being challenged by the shadow economy, by individuals and corporations choosing where they wish to pay tax, by the free flow of information within trans-national information infrastructures, and by global internet services and commerce. While Hobbes and Nakamoto start from similar positions, they end up in quite different destinations, and, since theory can be performative (Austin 1970), this means that very different worlds come to be. Analytically, each provides a lens through which one can examine the other, in theory and in practice. Together, the lenses provide a framing device for reimagining key concepts and practices that underpin the contemporary nation-state and, by extension, Financial Capitalism. The full paper will report on this comparative analysis. The Bitcoin phenomenon raises interesting methodological and theoretical points that we will also explore in the paper. Methodologically, the actor-network injunction to \u27follow the actors\u27 — i.e. focus on performance — is practically impossible due to the sheer scale, technical intricacies, global dispersion and far-fetched effects of currency-related phenomena. Focusing on visible performance is also misleading theoretically because it fails to distinguish between what does not happen, those \u27influences which operate behind the back of agents, and which therefore cannot be found in micro-situations\u27 (Knorr-Cetina 1981: 28), and what is purposefully avoided (Law and Singleton 2005). Indeed, Bitcoin is a manifestation of a totem of digital cultures: there is always an elsewhere, beyond the control of organizations. Creating an elsewhere free from Leviathan’s constraints (which resonates with Foucault’s notion of heterotopia) disrupts the body politic by exceeding or overflowing its framings (Callon 1998). The peculiarity of Bitcoin is not in any frontal clash with authority but rather in its strategy of avoidance, which we might interpret as a form of différance or the playing of an alternative game. What Bitcoin also illustrates is that the link between the micro and the macro is neither based on an immutable social contract nor maintained by an unbounded power. Rather, scalable and publicly accessible computing resources coordinate trustless macro actions without necessarily constituting actors and identities (Czarniawska 2008/2014). The paper will further examine the paradox where the supplement of the age of visibility is action without actors and the emergence of new boundaries between frontstage and backstage, public and secret