{"title":"繁荣、萧条、重复:金融市场参与与投机循环","authors":"Adam Goldstein, C. Knight","doi":"10.1086/723953","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article asks whether the experience of a boom-and-bust cycle renders economic actors more or less likely to engage in risky financial activities in the future. The financialization of U.S. households has occurred in the context of two successive mass-participatory asset bubbles: first in the stock market during the 1990s and later in the housing market during the 2000s. Behavioral economic theories predict that prior experience of market crashes should dampen speculative tendencies and prompt actors to behave more conservatively. By contrast, the authors build on the sociological literature about the financialization of daily life to develop an alternative hypothesis: that participation in financial markets increases actors’ tendencies to engage in risky investment by socializing them to attend to novel market opportunities. The authors test these alternatives using panel data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. Results from both control function and matched regression models reveal that those who participated more directly in the late 1990s stock market were more prone to invest aggressively in the mid-2000s housing market. These positive effects obtain irrespective of whether households gained or lost wealth during the bubble. The results provide new evidence about how financial capitalism is reshaping economic behavior.","PeriodicalId":7658,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Sociology","volume":"128 1","pages":"1430 - 1471"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Boom, Bust, Repeat: Financial Market Participation and Cycles of Speculation\",\"authors\":\"Adam Goldstein, C. Knight\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/723953\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article asks whether the experience of a boom-and-bust cycle renders economic actors more or less likely to engage in risky financial activities in the future. The financialization of U.S. households has occurred in the context of two successive mass-participatory asset bubbles: first in the stock market during the 1990s and later in the housing market during the 2000s. Behavioral economic theories predict that prior experience of market crashes should dampen speculative tendencies and prompt actors to behave more conservatively. By contrast, the authors build on the sociological literature about the financialization of daily life to develop an alternative hypothesis: that participation in financial markets increases actors’ tendencies to engage in risky investment by socializing them to attend to novel market opportunities. The authors test these alternatives using panel data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. Results from both control function and matched regression models reveal that those who participated more directly in the late 1990s stock market were more prone to invest aggressively in the mid-2000s housing market. These positive effects obtain irrespective of whether households gained or lost wealth during the bubble. The results provide new evidence about how financial capitalism is reshaping economic behavior.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7658,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Sociology\",\"volume\":\"128 1\",\"pages\":\"1430 - 1471\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Sociology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/723953\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/723953","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Boom, Bust, Repeat: Financial Market Participation and Cycles of Speculation
This article asks whether the experience of a boom-and-bust cycle renders economic actors more or less likely to engage in risky financial activities in the future. The financialization of U.S. households has occurred in the context of two successive mass-participatory asset bubbles: first in the stock market during the 1990s and later in the housing market during the 2000s. Behavioral economic theories predict that prior experience of market crashes should dampen speculative tendencies and prompt actors to behave more conservatively. By contrast, the authors build on the sociological literature about the financialization of daily life to develop an alternative hypothesis: that participation in financial markets increases actors’ tendencies to engage in risky investment by socializing them to attend to novel market opportunities. The authors test these alternatives using panel data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. Results from both control function and matched regression models reveal that those who participated more directly in the late 1990s stock market were more prone to invest aggressively in the mid-2000s housing market. These positive effects obtain irrespective of whether households gained or lost wealth during the bubble. The results provide new evidence about how financial capitalism is reshaping economic behavior.
期刊介绍:
Established in 1895 as the first US scholarly journal in its field, the American Journal of Sociology (AJS) presents pathbreaking work from all areas of sociology, with an emphasis on theory building and innovative methods. AJS strives to speak to the general sociology reader and is open to contributions from across the social sciences—sociology, political science, economics, history, anthropology, and statistics—that seriously engage the sociological literature to forge new ways of understanding the social. AJS offers a substantial book review section that identifies the most salient work of both emerging and enduring scholars of social science. Commissioned review essays appear occasionally, offering readers a comparative, in-depth examination of prominent titles. Although AJS publishes a very small percentage of the papers submitted to it, a double-blind review process is available to all qualified submissions, making the journal a center for exchange and debate "behind" the printed page and contributing to the robustness of social science research in general.