Since the 1970s, the world economy has been characterised by a process of financialisation. Britain has played a key role in this trend by helping to create a financialised global order and establishing the City of London as a central hub. But why did the UK choose to propel this process?
Drawing on a new book, Jack Copley explains
why the emergence of financialisation in the UK is best understood as
an accidental outcome rather than as the product of a coherent
neoliberal ideology.
It is increasingly common for political economists to claim that
capitalism has become ‘financialised’. Financialisation refers to a
range of interrelated phenomena that have come to characterise the world
economy since the 1970s: from the rise of shareholder value ideology,
to the growth of colossal institutional investors, to the inflation and
bursting of credit and asset price bubbles.
This process was propelled by state interventions. Policies of
financial liberalisation were first introduced in the advanced
capitalist world in the 1970s and 1980s, before being exported to the
Global South as part of IMF and World Bank structural adjustment
packages. Today’s financialised global economy was very much a political
creation.
The case of Britain perhaps best illustrates this dynamic. In the
wake of the Bretton Woods system’s collapse, successive British
governments – from Edward Heath to Margaret Thatcher – enacted radical
financial liberalisations that dismantled social democratic limits on
financial activity. The result was the tremendous expansion and
globalisation of the City of London financial centre.
But what drove this policy agenda of financial liberalisation? The
prevailing orthodoxy among scholars of financialisation is that
governments either submitted to financial lobbyists or became enthralled
by neoliberal ideology. In this way, states functioned either as
instruments wielded by financiers to advance their sectional interests
or as vessels for radical laissez-faire ideology. Margaret Thatcher is
said to exemplify this pattern, as she combined a cabinet packed with
people formerly employed in the City of London with an outspoken
commitment to neoliberal dogma. Her resulting package of financial
deregulations, so the argument goes, constituted a coherent political
project to advance the fortunes of the British financial sector.
My new book – Governing Financialization: The Tangled Politics of Financial Liberalization in Britain
– challenges this dominant narrative on the politics of
financialisation. By examining recently declassified government and Bank
of England documents, I demonstrate that the British state’s policies
that fostered financialisation in the 1970s and 1980s were not primarily
driven by financial lobbying or neoliberal ideology, nor were they part
of a larger blueprint. Instead, the policies that unleashed the
expansion of the City of London should be seen as short-term, haphazard
strategies to steer the British economy through the global capitalist
crisis of the era, while neutralising domestic working class backlash.
Governing the downturn
In the aftermath of World War II, global capitalism experienced a
tremendous growth spurt. Sky high profitability drove a prolonged
economic boom that served as the material basis for the construction of
social democratic compromises in many countries, including welfare
provisions, a great role for trade unions in national politics, and a
prioritisation of full employment.
In Britain, part of this compromise involved the strict regulation of
the City of London. Banks were organised into cartels that set interest
rates, which governments used to transmit monetary policy changes to
the financial system. In addition, banks faced quantitative limits on
lending, as well as restrictions on international financial flows. In
stark contrast to its role as the buccaneering centre for global finance
in the pre-1914 period, the post-1945 City of London was remarkably
constrained and nationally bounded.
By the late 1960s, the post-war boom was running out of steam. Global
markets became glutted with manufactured goods, as the economic upswing
translated into entrenched overproduction. As a result, profitability
began a long downward march. In response to falling profits, businesses
avoided making new investments and instead raised prices, generating
both economic stagnation and price inflation, or ‘stagflation’.
Britain experienced a particularly acute version of this global
crisis, due to its relative lack of economic competitiveness. As the
downturn worsened, Britain suffered repeated currency crises, as
investors regularly dumped sterling en masse over fears of a
deepening balance of payments deficit. Faced with the erosion of
post-war prosperity, British governments began to call into question the
sustainability of the social democratic compromise – including the
restrictions on the City of London.
In Governing Financialization, I explore the key financial
liberalisations pursued in this era: the 1971 Competition and Credit
Control measures, the 1978-79 abolition of exchange controls, and the
1986 Big Bang and Financial Services Act. While these policies
unshackled the City of London, propelling its growth and globalisation,
they were not designed to privilege financial elites nor were they
straightforward enactments of laissez-faire dogma. Rather, I demonstrate
that these deregulations were crafted to respond to the crushing
pressures of the global economic crisis while protecting policy-makers’
electoral legitimacy. In other words, financial liberalisation was a way
to manage the contradiction between capitalism’s crisis tendencies and
the demands of an enfranchised working class.
LSE
© LSE
Key
Hover over the blue highlighted
text to view the acronym meaning
Hover
over these icons for more information
Comments:
No Comments for this Article