{"title":"The UK Infrastructure Bank and the financialization of public infrastructures amidst nationalist neoliberalism","authors":"J. McArthur","doi":"10.1177/10245294231185906","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10245294231185906","url":null,"abstract":"Literature on the financialisation of infrastructure gives limited attention to public banks. Since public banks are key state institutions to enable and shape financialisation, more research is needed to show how they mediate financialisation processes amidst evolving social, political and economic pressures. To address the gap in existing literature, this article develops a case study on the UK Infrastructure Bank to examine how the bank enables financialisation whilst maintaining credibility with the United Kingdom's neoliberal-nationalist regime. The findings show that the UKIB is a centralised, technocratic institution which deploys de-risking interventions to attract private investment, including guarantees, equity shares and debt financing. Yet, these interventions enable projects which offer limited public value, such as debt financing to fuel over-investment in fibre broadband markets, or equity investments in infrastructure funds which perpetuate the dominance of short-term, extractive investment logics. To maintain credibility with the neoliberal-nationalist regime, the UKIB's governance strengthens the central government's power over its activities, allowing it to shape the post-Brexit policy agenda and target investment to specific constituencies. While the UKIB boosts the profitability of infrastructure assets for private investors, it also exposes regions to extractive logics that undermine the potential public benefits. The findings show how public banks can be used to coordinate and bolster support for financialisation, yet, the use of de-risking interventions to catalyse financialisation is often at odds with generating long-term public value.","PeriodicalId":207354,"journal":{"name":"Competition & Change","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131517621","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"In practice and in principle: ‘Free market’ discourses and container port reform in Australia","authors":"G. Taylor, M. McDonald","doi":"10.1177/10245294231181967","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10245294231181967","url":null,"abstract":"In the 1980s, successive Australian governments began to pursue a program of microeconomic restructuring, taking their lead from the developing ‘free market’ reform projects underway in the United States and the United Kingdom. One of the prominent features of the emerging liberalisation agenda was the commercialisation and privatisation of government-owned companies and assets. In keeping with this trend, over the following decades, a series of changes have been introduced to Australia’s container ports aimed at improving their productivity and efficiency. Drawing on a series of interviews and analysis of governmental and non-governmental reports, the purpose of this study is to examine how port policy has unfolded ‘on the ground’ in Australia. The paper considers some of the ‘common sense’ economic maxims expounded for reform in relation to actual outcomes for industry stakeholders, concluding that principles and practice have diverged significantly and that many of the assumed benefits have failed to materialise.","PeriodicalId":207354,"journal":{"name":"Competition & Change","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124929593","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Governing by entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial ecosystems and socio-spatial difference","authors":"Julian B Hartman, Mark Kear","doi":"10.1177/10245294231180297","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10245294231180297","url":null,"abstract":"Literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) has grown rapidly over the past 5 years, using the concept as a framework to understand regional clusters of entrepreneurship. This article reviews, critiques, and extends the concept of the EE, arguing for its relevance in studying the political economy of urban space. To make this argument, we distinguish between niche EEs (NEEs) and growth EEs (GEEs). This distinction is based on the overlapping but distinct networks of actors and institutions forming each type of EE and also reflects broadly different relationships to growth and productivity, the entrepreneurial subject, global and local scales, and financial ecologies. We argue that EE research has largely focused on GEEs to the neglect of NEEs; by broadening the EE concept, we address shortcomings in the treatment of small businesses, financial relations, social difference, as well as urban politics within the EE literature. Drawing on the EE literature and interviews from a case study of Boston, we show that the infrastructure of GEEs and NEEs are not only “for” fast- and slow-growing businesses, respectively, but reinforce social and economic differences. While NEEs do redistribute resources to marginalized entrepreneurs, these resources are focused on building businesses and only indirectly related to the needs of marginalized communities and equitable development more generally.","PeriodicalId":207354,"journal":{"name":"Competition & Change","volume":"02 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129087637","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The (un)usual suspects? Exploring the links between illicit financial flows, Russian money laundering and dependent financialization in the Baltic states","authors":"Leonardo Pataccini","doi":"10.1177/10245294231177352","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10245294231177352","url":null,"abstract":"The paper analyses the links between illicit financial flows, money laundering and dependent financialization using the Baltic states as exploratory case studies. Since the restoration of their independence, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have been involved in several massive money laundering scandals, with illicit funds flowing mainly from Russia, as well as other former Soviet Republics. Currently, these episodes have taken on a new dimension in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Until recently, the prevailing narrative was that illicit financial flows and money laundering in the Baltic states resulted from a failure in the financial system’s ability to monitor and detect these operations. However, this paper argues that far from being a simple shortcoming, money laundering and illicit financial flows in the Baltic states are products of dependent financialization in two main ways: first, in the decade leading up to the global financial crisis, the overall economic performance and the returns of financial actors in these countries became dependent on foreign capital inflows. This dependency was key to enabling the arrival of illicit financial flows and money laundering from the post-Soviet space, especially after the crisis. Second, due to its comparative advantages and its subordinate position in the international financial system, the banking sector of the Baltic states was used as an intermediary in global financial networks of money laundering for funds from the former USSR, where it assumed most of the financial, legal and reputational risks. Finally, the research also points to the emergence of new risks.","PeriodicalId":207354,"journal":{"name":"Competition & Change","volume":"63 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126613250","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Regulation from the inside? Internal supervision in Dutch pension funds","authors":"Natascha van der Zwan, Philipp Golka","doi":"10.1177/10245294231167657","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10245294231167657","url":null,"abstract":"Political economists have long acknowledged the importance of funded pensions acting as catalysts for processes of financialization. The transformation from rule- to risk-based pension fund governance is particularly important for pension financialization. Risk-based governance involves monitoring of internal decision-making procedures by new professionals rather than compliance with highly detailed legal restrictions. Scholars of financial regulation have termed this kind of supervision ‘regulation from the inside’. Being part of the organization they monitor, internal regulators hold fundamentally ambivalent positions. Existing studies emphasize the duality of internal regulators’ role perceptions as well as their attempts to span the boundaries between themselves and other organizational actors. In this paper, we extend scholarly insights on risk-based supervision of private (non-)financial institutions to pension institutions by focusing on a peculiar form of ‘regulation from the inside’: so-called internal supervisors in Dutch occupational pension funds. Internal supervisors are pension fund functionaries, responsible for evaluating the governing board's performance and holding the board accountable. We report findings from an original survey and interview study among internal supervisors. Contrary to the formal requirement of independence between governing board and internal supervision (a ‘checks and balances’ perspective), we find that internal supervisors often adopt a ‘fusion of powers’ approach that emphasizes collaboration with the governing board. We attribute this finding not only to internal supervision’s institutional design but also to the highly networked character of Dutch pension governance.","PeriodicalId":207354,"journal":{"name":"Competition & Change","volume":"71 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132307150","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}