The boundary contest that never was: Shadow banking and the relation between monetary system and financial system

IF 1.9 4区 社会学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Barbara Kuchler
{"title":"The boundary contest that never was: Shadow banking and the relation between monetary system and financial system","authors":"Barbara Kuchler","doi":"10.1177/05390184231203885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What is the relation between the monetary system and the financial system? The two used to be rather clearly separated, with the realm of money-currency-banking operating under close sovereign control and financial markets being left to the private activities of financial actors. However, the rise of shadow banking has somewhat blurred the picture. Shadow banking is done with financial instruments that operate in practically money-equivalent ways but are not officially categorized as ‘monetary’. This has created some ontological ambiguity and has bred some dispute between orthodox and heterodox economists as to whether or not shadow banking instruments ‘are’ money and should be subject to monetary regulation. The article draws on the sociological concepts of (i) categorization and commensuration, (ii) boundary contest, and (iii) system to give a sociological redescription of the situation. It discusses three hypotheses. (i) The financial system has expanded its horizon of operation through processes of commensuration and has come to include activities that were formerly done in the protected monetary niche. (ii) As a consequence, there have occurred significant boundary shifts between monetary and financial turfs, which have, however, not developed into a veritable boundary contest that would pit opposing coalitions and money definitions against each other. (iii) The reason for this is the asymmetric systemness of the two sides: While the financial system is a well-developed and expansionary system, the monetary ‘system’ is not really a system but a regulatory structure that lacks systemic powers of self-assertion and self-defense.","PeriodicalId":47697,"journal":{"name":"Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales","volume":" 20","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184231203885","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

What is the relation between the monetary system and the financial system? The two used to be rather clearly separated, with the realm of money-currency-banking operating under close sovereign control and financial markets being left to the private activities of financial actors. However, the rise of shadow banking has somewhat blurred the picture. Shadow banking is done with financial instruments that operate in practically money-equivalent ways but are not officially categorized as ‘monetary’. This has created some ontological ambiguity and has bred some dispute between orthodox and heterodox economists as to whether or not shadow banking instruments ‘are’ money and should be subject to monetary regulation. The article draws on the sociological concepts of (i) categorization and commensuration, (ii) boundary contest, and (iii) system to give a sociological redescription of the situation. It discusses three hypotheses. (i) The financial system has expanded its horizon of operation through processes of commensuration and has come to include activities that were formerly done in the protected monetary niche. (ii) As a consequence, there have occurred significant boundary shifts between monetary and financial turfs, which have, however, not developed into a veritable boundary contest that would pit opposing coalitions and money definitions against each other. (iii) The reason for this is the asymmetric systemness of the two sides: While the financial system is a well-developed and expansionary system, the monetary ‘system’ is not really a system but a regulatory structure that lacks systemic powers of self-assertion and self-defense.
从未有过的边界之争:影子银行与货币体系与金融体系的关系
货币体系和金融体系之间的关系是什么?这两者过去是泾渭分明的,货币银行领域在主权国家的严密控制下运作,而金融市场则留给金融参与者的私人活动。然而,影子银行的崛起在某种程度上模糊了这一图景。影子银行使用的金融工具实际上以货币等同的方式运作,但没有被正式归类为“货币”。这造成了一些本体论上的模糊性,并在正统和非正统经济学家之间引发了一些争论,即影子银行工具是否“是”货币,是否应该受到货币监管。本文借鉴了(1)分类与通约、(2)边界竞争、(3)系统等社会学概念,从社会学角度重新描述了这一情况。它讨论了三个假设。(i)金融制度通过通约过程扩大了其业务范围,并开始包括以前在受保护的货币龛内进行的活动。因此,在货币和金融领域之间发生了重大的边界转移,然而,这并没有发展成一场真正的边界竞赛,使对立的联盟和货币定义相互对立。(三)其原因是双方的不对称系统性:虽然金融体系是一个发达的扩张性体系,但货币“体系”并不是一个真正的体系,而是一个缺乏自我主张和自卫的系统性权力的监管结构。
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
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Social Science Information is an international peer reviewed journal that publishes the highest quality original research in the social sciences at large with special focus on theoretical debates, methodology and comparative and (particularly) cross-cultural research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信