Boom, Bust, Repeat: Financial Market Participation and Cycles of Speculation

IF 4.4 1区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY American Journal of Sociology Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1086/723953
Adam Goldstein, C. Knight
{"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}
引用次数: 0

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.
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
繁荣、萧条、重复:金融市场参与与投机循环
本文提出的问题是,繁荣与萧条周期的经历是否会使经济参与者在未来更有可能或更少地从事高风险的金融活动。美国家庭的金融化发生在两次连续的大规模参与资产泡沫的背景下:第一次是在20世纪90年代的股市,后来是在21世纪头十年的房地产市场。行为经济学理论预测,先前的市场崩溃经验应该会抑制投机倾向,并促使参与者采取更保守的行为。相比之下,作者在日常生活金融化的社会学文献的基础上提出了另一种假设:参与金融市场增加了参与者参与风险投资的倾向,使他们参与到新的市场机会中去。作者使用收入动态小组研究和1979年全国青年纵向调查的小组数据来测试这些替代方案。控制函数和匹配回归模型的结果表明,那些更直接参与20世纪90年代末股票市场的人更倾向于积极投资2000年代中期的房地产市场。无论家庭在泡沫期间财富是增加还是减少,这些积极效应都会出现。研究结果为金融资本主义如何重塑经济行为提供了新的证据。
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
5.80
自引率
2.30%
发文量
103
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.
期刊最新文献
Genetic Options and Constraints: A Randomized Controlled Trial on How Genetic Ancestry Tests Affect Ethnic and Racial Identities Identities and Interactions: Reentry and Reintegration after Incarceration for Genocide Family Tree Branches and Southern Roots: Contemporary Racial Differences in Marriage in Intergenerational and Contextual Perspective A Very Uneven Playing Field: Economic Mobility in the United States Lowering their Meritocratic Blinders: White Men’s Harassment Experiences and their Recognition and Reporting of Workplace Race and Gender Bias
×
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