Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Valuation practices and the cooptation charge: Quantification and monetization as political logics

  • Article
  • Published:
Contemporary Political Theory Aims and scope

Abstract

Market-like devices that enact quantification and monetization processes (QM) underpin a growing number of valuation practices, but the widespread take-up of QM has given rise to the ‘cooptation charge’: for all the good intentions and results produced by those who deploy QM, they are complicit in reinforcing problematic neoliberal tendencies. A political discourse-theoretical perspective, combined with a pragmatist scholarship that has made significant advances in our understanding of QM, suggests that the cooptation charge relies on an overly simplified picture of both QM and neoliberalism. However, while we acknowledge this as an important advance, we argue that the normative, political, and ideological significance of QM remains surprisingly underspecified. We still lack a convincing theoretical framework that provides a more rounded multi-dimensional critical perspective within which to navigate the evaluative dilemmas produced by these increasingly widespread techniques, including cooptation worries. Drawing on the logics approach of the Essex school of political discourse theory, we develop a framework that brings together the strategic, normative, and ideological dimensions that otherwise tend to be treated separately in the literature, allowing a fuller assessment of such technologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Antal, A.B., Hutter, M. and Stark, D. (eds.) (2015) Moments of Valuation. Oxford: Oxfor University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barman, E. (2016) Caring Capitalism: The Meaning and Measure of Social Value in the Market. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Beer, D. (2016) Metric power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bemow, S., Biewald, B. and Marron, D. (1991) Environmental externalities measurement: Quantification, valuation and monetization. In O. Hohmeyer and R.L. Ottinger (eds.) External Environmental Costs of Electric Power. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beugré, C. (2016) Social Entrepreneurship: Managing the Creation of Social Value. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boltanski, L. and Thévenot, L. (2006) On Justification: Economies of Worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bruno, I., Didier, E. and Vitale, T. (2014) Statactivism: Forms of action between disclosure and affirmation. Partecipazione e Conflito. the Open Journal of Sociopolitical Studies 7(2): 198–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (ed.) (1998) The Laws of the Markets. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, D. and Warren, R. (2021) Economic Re-colonisation: Financialisation, Indigeneity and the Epistemic Violence of Resolution. Political Geography 84: 102284–102284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coles, R. (2016) Visionary Pragmatism: Radical and Ecological Democracy in Neoliberal Times. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coles, R. and Susen, S. (2018) The pragmatic vision of visionary pragmatism: The challenge of radical democracy in a neoliberal world order. Contemporary Political Theory 17(2): 250–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, W.E. (2008) Capitalism and Christianity, American Style. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coole, D.H. and Frost, S. (2010) New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, W. (2014) The Limits of Neoliberalism: Authority, Sovereignty and the Logic of Competition. London: SAGE Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dean, M. (2010) Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devenney, M. (2020) Towards an Improper Politics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Doganova, L., et al. (2014) Valuation studies and the critique of valuation. Valuation Studies 2(2): 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espeland, W.N. and Lom, S.E. (2015) Noticing numbers: How quantification changes what we see and what we don’t. In M. Kornberger, U. Justesen, A.K. Madsen and J. Mouritsen (eds.) Making Things Valuable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, J. (2010) The uses of neoliberalism. Antipode 41(1): 166–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, R. (2013) How I learned to stop worrying and love the market. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 31: 796–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (2008) The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France 1978–1979. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fourcade, M. (2011) Cents and sensibility. Economic valuation and the nature of ‘nature.’ American Journal of Sociology 116(6): 1721–1777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson-Graham, J.K. (2006) A Postcapitalist Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson-Graham, J.K. (2008) Diverse economies: Performative practices for ‘other worlds’. Progress in Human Geography 32: 613–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glynos, J. (2012) Body, discourse, and the turn to matter. In S. Bahun and D. Radunovic (eds.) Language, Ideology, and the Human: New Interventions. London: Ashgate, pp. 173–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glynos, J. and Howarth, D. (2007) Logics of Critical Explanation in Social and Political Theory. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gressgård, R. (2015) The power of re-attachment in urban strategy. Environment and Planning A: Economics and Space 47: 108–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griggs, S. and Howarth, D.R. (forthcoming 2022) Politicization, Depoliticization and the Technologies of Government: Debating Airport Expansion and the Prospects of a Post-aviation Future in the UK. Bristol: Bristol University Press.

  • Grusin, R. (2015) The Nonhuman Turn. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunder, M. (2016) Planning’s ‘failure’ to ensure efficient market delivery: A Lacanian deconstruction of this neoliberal scapegoating fantasy. European Planning Studies 24(1): 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, N. (2001) Cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy making. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 19: 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helgesson, C.F. and Muniesa, F. (2013) For what it’s worth: An introduction to valuation studies. Valuation Studies 1(1): 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hesketh, C. (2016) The survival of non-capitalism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 34(5): 877–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hockley, N. (2014) Cost-benefit analysis: A decision-support tool or a venue for contesting ecosystem knolwedge? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 32: 283–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howarth, D.R. (2013) Poststructuralism and After: Structure, Subjectivity and Power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hutter, M. and Stark, D. (2015) Pragmatist perspectives on valuation: An introduction. In A.B. Antal, M. Hutter and D. Stark (eds.) Moments of Valuation: Exploring Sites of Dissonance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jayasinghe, K. and Thomas, D. (2014) Alternative and social accounting. In M. Parker, G. Cheney, V. Fournier and C. Land (eds.) The Routledge Companion to Alternative Organization. London: Routledge, pp. 267–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kjellberg, H., Mallard, A., et al. (2013) Valuation studies? Our collective two cents. Valuation Studies 1(1): 11–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornberger, M., Justesen, U., Madsen, A.K. and Mouritsen, J. (eds.) (2015) Making Things Valuable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1987) Post-Marxism without apologies. New Left Review 166: 79–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2000) When things strike back: A possible contribution of ‘science studies’ to the social sciences. The British Journal of Sociology 51(1): 107–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (1999) After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology. Sociological Review 47(1): 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D., Muniesa, F. and Siu, L. (eds.) (2007) Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performativity of Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maor, M. (2017) Policy entrepreneurs in policy valuation processes. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 35(8): 1401–1417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marres, N. and McGoey, L. (2012) Experimental failure: Notes on the limits of the performativity of markets. In: After Markets: Researching Hybrid Arrangements. Oxford Said Business School, United Kingdom. [Conference or Workshop Item]: Goldsmiths Research Online.

  • Mert, A. (2015) Environmental Governance Through Partnerships. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mol, A. (2008) The Logic of Care: Health and the Problem of Patient Choice. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moor, L. and Lury, C. (2011) Making and measuring value: Comparison, singularity and agency in brand valuation practice. Journal of Cultural Economy 4(4): 439–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muniesa, F., Millo, Y. and Callon, M. (2007) An introduction to market devices. The Sociological Review 55(S2): 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A. (2009) ‘We do good things, don’t we?’: ‘Blended Value Accounting’ in social entrepreneurship. Accounting, Organizations and Society 34(6): 755–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemeyer, S. and Spash, C.L. (2001) Environmental valuation analysis, public deliberation and their pragmatic syntheses. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 19: 567–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peden, M. (2008) Democratic taxation and quantifiable action: Scientizing dilemmas. Contemporary Political Theory 7: 302–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. (1997) The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, T. (1995) Trust in Numbers: The Search for Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sayer, A. (2003) (De)commodification, consumer culture and moral economy. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 21: 341–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shore, C. and Wright, S. (2015) Governing by numbers: audit culture, rankings and the new world order. Social Anthropology 23(1): 22–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The SROI Network. (2012) A Guide to Social Return on Investment. London: The SROI Network.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turnhout, E., Neves, K. and de Lijster, E. (2014) “Measurementality” in biodiversity governance. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 46: 581–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vatin, F. (2013) Valuation as evaluating and valorizing. Valuation Studies 1(1): 31–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J.P. (2011) Quantifying citizens: Neoliberal restructuring and immigrant selection in Canada and Australia. Citizenship Studies 15(6–7): 861–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, M. (1983) Spheres of Justice: A Defence of Pluralism and Equality. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, K. (2011) Articulating discursive and materialist conceptions of practice in the logics approach to critical policy analysis. Critical Policy Studies 5(4): 414–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittle, A. and Spicer, A. (2008) Is actor network theory critique? Organization Studies 29(4): 611–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

In developing the ideas informing this paper, we have benefited enormously from the generous feedback we have received from many people, including colleagues at the Centre for Ideology and Discourse Analysis, University of Essex; the Technologies of Governance Research Group, including especially Rebecca Warren and David Carter; and the AlterEcos Research Group, Copenhagen Business School. We also thank Christian De Cock and the anonymous reviewers at CPT for their very helpful and constructive comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Government, University of Essex, Colchester, CO4 3SQ, UK

    Jason Glynos

  2. Department of Humanities and Law, Bournemouth University, Poole, BH12 5BB, UK

    Savvas Voutyras

Authors
  1. Jason Glynos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Savvas Voutyras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason Glynos.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Glynos, J., Voutyras, S. Valuation practices and the cooptation charge: Quantification and monetization as political logics. Contemp Polit Theory 21, 588–610 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-021-00513-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-021-00513-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation