Financial History, Historical Analysis, and the New History of Finance Capital

Eichengreen, Barry

doi:10.1353/cap.2019.0003

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 87 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While exciting attempts have been made to offer broad concepts for understanding the grammar of finance in contemporary capitalism (Birch and Muniesa, 2020; Langley, 2020; Adkins et al, 2020, the field continues to branch out in ever more diverse directions. Most notably, there is the prolific formula 'finance and X', which already has given us a range of new research agendas: finance and law (Pistor, 2013; Desan, 2014; Angeletti and Lemoine, 2021, finance and security (de Goede, 2010; Boy et al, 2017; Westermeier, 2019, finance and the new history of capitalism (Eichengreen, 2019), finance and business history (Mollan, 2021), and who knows what next. Once defining fault lines -such as the opposition between performativity and structural critique -seem less significant than they did just a decade ago.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

After the boom: Finance and society studies in the 2020s and beyond

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The crisis of 2008 was a watershed event for the study of finance and society. There was the boom in financial markets that came to a head with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, and there was the boom in financial scholarship that followed in its wake. But what comes after this second boom? After more than a decade of rapid expansion under the shadow of 2008, what comes next for the new finance studies? What are the emerging debates that matter most? Where lies the need for further theorisation and for new empirical work? In this editorial, these questions are pursued under three broad headings, each corresponding to an overarching imperative: first, the need to keep a vigilant watch on the core institutions and logics of finance; second, the need to continue expanding and deepening the field; and third, the need to persist with difficult lines of questioning.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%