Here is our commentary on how the 2024 Economics Nobel integrates colonialism into economics, while leaving a colonial worldview intact (with @SurbhiKesar & @devikadutt). To explain how & why they do this, we go back to the colonial origins of economics. epw.in/journal/2024/4…
As Econ is increasingly being challenged for not adequately dealing with issues of racialization & imperialism, the "colonial turn" in economics that AJR represent seems to offer a defense. But they don't deal with the fundamental problem: the Eurocentric view of capitalism.
A Eurocentric view is one that assumes the development of capitalism evolved in the global North in a rational manner, based on a range of internal factors, distracting from the violent processes of exploitation & colonial extraction that shaped development & underdevelopment.
After the intro by @pritishbehuria & @GoodfellowTom (linked to above), you can read the interventions summarized in chronological order.
I was up first, focusing my intervention on the problem of lack of South-centered theorisation in development studies devstud.org.uk/2023/02/28/the…
Next up was @Kamnatweets, calling for a deliberate deconstruction of our projections of 'development', picking apart the 'black box' & reckoning with the range of political causes UK Development Studies programmes serve, intentionally or unintentionally, devstud.org.uk/2023/02/28/loo…
Building on scholarship by Amin, Quijano, Sanyal, and feminist IPE, we see a radical decolonization agenda as one necessitates unpacking how dominant approaches may hinder the study of systemic processes associated with decolonization, such as structural racism and imperialism.
This entails analyzing and challenging Eurocentrism in economics, but also seeking to foreground theoretical frameworks which might be more useful for studying systemic processes that lead to various form of subordination.
We engage with 2 main camps in the financialisation lit: 1) largely descriptive studies of how financial institutions, actors, motives & practices have expanded in recent decades (e.g. Krippner, Epstein), focusing on quantitative changes.
We call it the 'expansion' view.
2) More qualitative studies of how finance has come to dominate other realms of the economy, which often see the productive marriage between finance and production as in severe crisis, as the golden age of capitalism has come to an end. We call it the 'divorce' view.
What happens when 7 scholars from different heterodox traditions, including Marxism, Post-Keynesianism & Dependency Theory, get together to work on finance?
It actually did not descend into total chaos 🤯
Check out our research agenda on international financial subordination 😊
We identify how different heterodox & disciplinary traditions bring different strengths to the table for conceptualising how developing economies remain in a subordinate position in the global monetary and financial system, and how this shapes the ways in which finance operates.
We argue that an agenda on international financial subordination (IFS) would benefit from a sustained engagement with heterodox traditions that have been the most explicit and systematic in their analysis of finance in the periphery: Marxist, PK & dependency theory scholarship.