'Building back better' or sustaining the unsustainable? The climate impacts of Bank of England QE in the Covid-19 pandemic.

IF 1.1 3区社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE

British Politics Pub Date : 2023-01-03 DOI:10.1057/s41293-022-00223-w

Daniel Bailey

{"title":"'Building back better' or sustaining the unsustainable? The climate impacts of Bank of England QE in the Covid-19 pandemic.","authors":"Daniel Bailey","doi":"10.1057/s41293-022-00223-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The environmental impacts of monetary policy received academic attention after the 2008 financial crisis and the 'market neutral' quantitative easing policies that followed. This article examines the Bank of England's Corporate Covid Financing Facility (CCFF) and the Asset Purchasing Facility (APF) between June 2020 and June 2021 to assess whether the Bank's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was aligned with the transition to sustainability. The data indicates that the Bank of England's monetary allocation schemes again served as a panacea for businesses with ecologically intensive business models and a Treasury committed to restoring the pre-existing growth model. Indeed, the Bank's QE schemes now represents an element of the crisis management governance that repeatedly 'locks in' the ecologically-calamitous economic trajectory at potential critical junctures. The Bank's shielding of its technocratic and depoliticised status has thus far inhibited any leadership role in tackling the climate crisis, despite its growing power as an actor of economic governance at times of crisis and purported enthusiasm to 'build back better'.</p>","PeriodicalId":46067,"journal":{"name":"British Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9808683/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-022-00223-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The environmental impacts of monetary policy received academic attention after the 2008 financial crisis and the 'market neutral' quantitative easing policies that followed. This article examines the Bank of England's Corporate Covid Financing Facility (CCFF) and the Asset Purchasing Facility (APF) between June 2020 and June 2021 to assess whether the Bank's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was aligned with the transition to sustainability. The data indicates that the Bank of England's monetary allocation schemes again served as a panacea for businesses with ecologically intensive business models and a Treasury committed to restoring the pre-existing growth model. Indeed, the Bank's QE schemes now represents an element of the crisis management governance that repeatedly 'locks in' the ecologically-calamitous economic trajectory at potential critical junctures. The Bank's shielding of its technocratic and depoliticised status has thus far inhibited any leadership role in tackling the climate crisis, despite its growing power as an actor of economic governance at times of crisis and purported enthusiasm to 'build back better'.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

重建得更好 "还是维持不可持续？科维德-19 大流行病中英格兰银行量化宽松政策对气候的影响。

货币政策的环境影响在 2008 年金融危机和随后的 "市场中性 "量化宽松政策之后受到了学术界的关注。本文研究了 2020 年 6 月至 2021 年 6 月期间英格兰银行的企业科维德融资机制（CCFF）和资产购买机制（APF），以评估英格兰银行应对 COVID-19 大流行的措施是否与向可持续发展过渡相一致。数据显示，英格兰银行的货币分配计划再次成为具有生态密集型商业模式的企业和致力于恢复原有增长模式的财政部的灵丹妙药。事实上，英格兰银行的量化宽松计划现在代表了危机管理治理的一个要素，它在潜在的关键时刻反复 "锁定 "了破坏生态的经济轨迹。尽管世行在危机时期作为经济治理行为者的权力日益增长，并声称热衷于 "重建得更好"，但世行对其技术官僚和非政治化地位的保护，迄今已阻碍了其在应对气候危机方面发挥任何领导作用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

British Politics POLITICAL SCIENCE-

CiteScore

2.40

自引率

9.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： British Politics offers the only forum explicitly designed to promote research in British political studies, and seeks to provide a counterweight to the growing fragmentation of this field during recent years. To this end, the journal aims to promote a more holistic understanding of British politics by encouraging a closer integration between theoretical and empirical research, between historical and contemporary analyses, and by fostering a conception of British politics as a broad and multi-disciplinary field of study. This incorporates a range of sub-fields, including psephology, policy analysis, regional studies, comparative politics, institutional analysis, political theory, political economy, historical analysis, cultural studies and social policy. While recognising the validity and the importance of research into specific aspects of British politics, the journal takes it to be a guiding principle that such research is more useful, and indeed meaningful, if it is related to the field of British politics in a broader and fuller sense. The scope of the journal will therefore be broad, incorporating a range of research papers and review articles from all theoretical perspectives, and on all aspects of British politics, including policy developments, institutional change and political behaviour. Priority will, however, be given to contributions which link contemporary developments in British politics to theoretical and/or historical analyses. The aim is as much to encourage the development of empirical research that is theoretically rigorous and informed, as it is to encourage the empirical application of theoretical work (or at least to encourage theorists to explicitly signify how their work could be applied in an empirical manner).