An interwoven financialization narrative as a driver of the 2008 Crash

IF 1.9 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Qualitative Research in financial Markets Pub Date : 2022-07-13 DOI:10.1108/qrfm-04-2021-0060
J. Myers
{"title":"An interwoven financialization narrative as a driver of the 2008 Crash","authors":"J. Myers","doi":"10.1108/qrfm-04-2021-0060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe 2008 Crash (the Crash) has been attributed to the dominance of financialized corporate governance, particularly an increased shareholder value rhetoric. Following the Crash, this extreme narrative is understood to have become less financialized through increasingly favouring stakeholders. The purpose of this research is to investigate this often-accepted view using field theory, wherein managers' biases in the value-creating process result from an interconnected, dynamic, multi-actor discourse.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nVarious domains across the UK’s corporate governance environment, from the perspective of field theory, generate the complex discourse: corporate and regulatory domains, stakeholder organizations such as the press and think tanks. Domain-specific corpora, representative of this multi-actor field, were constructed, with financialization analysed by assessing managers’ altering biases concerning the relative importance of shareholders and stakeholders (amongst other factors like time horizon) to value creation.\n\n\nFindings\nHighlights of the multiple findings include the following: corporate narrative about value creation became less financialized following the Crash, yet favouring shareholders, while the multi-actor discourse for the UK economy as a whole became slightly more financialized.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nAnalysing a multi-actor discourse is complex. And this, to the best of the author’s knowledge, is the first study of its kind, and only made possible with the original methodology of narrative staining. The approach, while having particular relevance to field theory, is applicable to many other narrative-based research scenarios.\n","PeriodicalId":45060,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Research in financial Markets","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Research in financial Markets","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/qrfm-04-2021-0060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose The 2008 Crash (the Crash) has been attributed to the dominance of financialized corporate governance, particularly an increased shareholder value rhetoric. Following the Crash, this extreme narrative is understood to have become less financialized through increasingly favouring stakeholders. The purpose of this research is to investigate this often-accepted view using field theory, wherein managers' biases in the value-creating process result from an interconnected, dynamic, multi-actor discourse. Design/methodology/approach Various domains across the UK’s corporate governance environment, from the perspective of field theory, generate the complex discourse: corporate and regulatory domains, stakeholder organizations such as the press and think tanks. Domain-specific corpora, representative of this multi-actor field, were constructed, with financialization analysed by assessing managers’ altering biases concerning the relative importance of shareholders and stakeholders (amongst other factors like time horizon) to value creation. Findings Highlights of the multiple findings include the following: corporate narrative about value creation became less financialized following the Crash, yet favouring shareholders, while the multi-actor discourse for the UK economy as a whole became slightly more financialized. Originality/value Analysing a multi-actor discourse is complex. And this, to the best of the author’s knowledge, is the first study of its kind, and only made possible with the original methodology of narrative staining. The approach, while having particular relevance to field theory, is applicable to many other narrative-based research scenarios.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
交织在一起的金融化叙事是2008年金融危机的驱动力
2008年的崩溃(崩溃)被归因于金融化公司治理的主导地位,特别是股东价值修辞的增加。在金融危机之后,人们认为,这种极端的说法通过越来越偏袒利益相关者而变得不那么金融化了。本研究的目的是利用场理论来调查这一经常被接受的观点,其中管理者在价值创造过程中的偏见是由相互关联的、动态的、多参与者的话语造成的。设计/方法/方法从场理论的角度来看,英国公司治理环境的各个领域产生了复杂的话语:公司和监管领域,利益相关者组织,如新闻界和智库。构建了代表这一多参与者领域的特定领域语料库,并通过评估管理者对股东和利益相关者(以及其他因素,如时间范围)对价值创造的相对重要性的改变偏见来分析金融化。多重发现的亮点包括以下几点:在金融危机之后,企业关于价值创造的叙述变得不那么金融化了,但对股东有利,而英国经济整体上的多参与者话语变得稍微金融化了。原创性/价值分析多角色话语是复杂的。据作者所知,这是这类研究的第一次,只有在原始的叙事染色方法下才有可能。这种方法虽然与场理论特别相关,但也适用于许多其他基于叙事的研究场景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
10.50%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Qualitative Research in Financial Markets is the only peer-reviewed journal dedicated to exploring the rapidly-growing area of research activity in finance that uses qualitative methods. Building on a long pedigree of finance research, the journal publishes international and innovative analyses and novel insights into financial markets worldwide
期刊最新文献
Internal Shariah audit change: an identification of specific Islamic legal maxim in Islamic banking institution Role of policyholders’ beliefs in life insurance lapses: a model building approach Exploring the potential impact of big data on the collection of sufficient, appropriate audit evidence: insights from auditors in the UAE Determinants inhibiting digital payment system adoption: an Indian perspective Debt advice in Europe: a search of the good practices to fight over-indebtedness
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1