Skip to main content

Financialisation of Valuation

Abstract

This article shows that forms of analysis and calculation specific to finance are spreading, and changing valuation processes in various social settings. This perspective is used to contribute to the study of the recent transformations of capitalism, as financialisation is usually seen as marking the past three decades. After defining what is meant by “financialised valuation,” different examples are discussed. Recent developments concerning the valuation of assets in accounting standards and credit risk in banking regulations are used to suggest that colonisation of financial activities by financialised valuations is taking place. Other changes, concerning the valuation of social or cultural activities and environmental issues are also highlighted in order to support the hypothesis of a parallel colonisation of non-financial activities by financialised valuations. Specifically, the language of finance appears to gradually being incorporated into public policies, especially in Europe—and this trend seems to have gathered pace since the 2000s. Some interpretations are proposed to understand why public policies are seemingly increasingly reliant on financialised valuations.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The notion of subjectification is part of a Foucauldian heritage and concerns the fabrication of subjects.Çalιşkan and Callon (2009: 389) make the following comment on the importance of this concept in the study of economisation: “Subjectification implies that, if some modes of valuation are seen as economic and if they are related to behaviours also considered as economic, it is because agents have been configured and formatted as subjects who are technically and mentally equipped to enact these valuations”.

  2. 2.

    Decoupling is when “the audit process becomes a world in itself, self-referentially creating auditable images of performance” (Power 1997: 95). Colonisation is when “the values and practices which make auditing possible penetrate deep into the core of organizational operations, not just in terms of requiring energy and resources to conform to new reporting demands but in the creation over time of new mentalities, new incentives and perception of significance” (1997: 97).

  3. 3.

    Boltanski and Thevenot’s (2006) model makes it possible to identify the plurality of possible judgement principles, the worth attribution operations, and the different “tests” to which things and people are subjected in order to reach an agreement on relative worth.

  4. 4.

    That is how the earliest users of the method for assessing non-financial investments in the late 19th century justified discounting cash flows (Doganova 2014). Nowadays, scholars would put the emphasis on opportunity cost, which is more general than only considering savings in banks.

  5. 5.

    Fair value is defined in IFRS 13 as “the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date”.

  6. 6.

    IFRS 13, released by the IASB in 2011 and endorsed by the EU in December 2012, adopts the three-level valuation logic of the 2006 US standard FAS 157.

  7. 7.

    Regarding derivatives, which played a very important role in the 2008 crisis, it should be noted that it is very unusual for them to have a level 1 valuation.

  8. 8.

    The conceptual frameworks of both the American and international accounting standard-setters consider that accounting must primarily satisfy investors (Zhang and Andrew 2013; Young 2006); the needs of other users of accounting information are considered to be met if investors’ needs are met.

  9. 9.

    The impact of these standards on corporate accounting image and calculation of profits is clearly enormous for firms with large financial portfolios, i.e., banks and insurance companies. Other provisions also based on a financialised approach to financialised valuation have affected non-financial firms through other channels, but there is not enough space here to discuss this further.

  10. 10.

    The methods and instruments for calculating credit risk introduced under Basel II were not changed in Basel III, and are still the standard regulatory rule for computing credit risk today.

  11. 11.

    www.thegiin.org.

  12. 12.

    SROI was invented in this milieu and then spread to Europe via the United Kingdom. “A Guide to SROI” was published by the Cabinet Office in 2009. A new version has been issued in 2012 (see on line).

  13. 13.

    The famous Business school launched the Social Enterprise Initiative in 1993.

  14. 14.

    According to an ongoing analysis of the history of OECD debates by Pestre (2014), economicisation appears to result from a clear political aim pursued since the early 1970s to make environmental questions secondary to the question of economic growth, as a reaction to the Club of Rome, which sees the environmental question as an obligation to slow down economic growth.

  15. 15.

    www.teebweb.org.

References

  1. Abeles, M. (2002). Les Nouveaux riches. Un ethnologue dans la Silicon Valley. Paris: Odile Jacob.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alix, N., & Baudet, A. (2013). La mesure de l’impact social : facteur de transformation du secteur social en Europe. 4e Conférence internationale du CIRIEC. http://recma.org/node/3786

  3. Baud C., & Chiapello E. (2014). Disciplining the neoliberal bank: Credit risk regulation and the financialization of loan management. Working paper. SSRN. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2417396

  4. Berland, N., & Chiapello, E. (2009). Criticisms of capitalism, budgeting and the double enrolment: Budgetary control rhetoric and social reform in France in the 1930s and 1950s. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(1), 28–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Boisvert, V., & Vivien, F.-D. (2012). Towards a political economy approach to the convention on biological diversity. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2012(36), 1163–1179. doi:10.1093/cje/bes047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boltanski, L., & Thevenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bourdieu, P. (1996). The rules of art. Genesis and structure of the literary field. (S. Emanuel, Trans.). Standford: Standford U.P.

  8. Bryer, R. A. (2000). The history of accounting and the transition to capitalism in England. Part one: Theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25, 131–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Çalιşkan, K., & Callon, M. (2009). Economization. Part 1: Shifting attention from the economy towards processes of economization. Economy and Society, 38(3), 369–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Capron, M. (Ed.). (2005). Les nouvelles normes comptables internationales: Instruments du capitalisme financier. Paris: La Découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chiapello, E. (2005). Les normes comptables comme institution du capitalisme. Une analyse du passage aux IFRS en Europe à partir de 2005. Sociologie du travail, 47, 362–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chiapello, E. (2007). Accounting and the birth of the notion of capitalism. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13(3), 263–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chiapello, E., & Medjad, K. (2009). An unprecedented privatisation of mandatory standard-setting: The case of European accounting policy. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(4), 448–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Desrosieres, A. (2008). Pour une sociologie historique de la quantification. L’argument statistique I. Paris: Les Presses de l’Ecole des Mines.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dewey, J. (1939). Theory of valuation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Doganova, L. (2014). Décompter le futur: la formule des flux actualisés et le manager-investisseur. Sociétés Contemporaines, 93(2), 67–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Duménil, G., & Lévy, D. (2001). Costs and benefits of neoliberalism. A class analysis. Review of International Political Economy, 8(4), 578–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Epstein, G. A. (Ed.). (2005). Financialization and the world economy. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Espeland, W., & Stevens, M. (1998). Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 313–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. European Commission (2011). Commission staff working paper. Impact Assessment, Accompanying the document Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Creative Europe Framework Programme (SEC (2011) 1399 final), p. 9. Brussels: European Commission.

  21. European Social Entrepreneurship Funds (2013). Regulation (EU) No 346/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

  22. Eymard-Duvernay, F. (Ed.). (2006). L’économie des conventions, méthodes et résultats. Tome 1: Débats. Paris: La Découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fisher, I. (1906). The nature of capital and income. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class and how it’s transforming work, leisure and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. G8 Social Impact Investment Forum (2013). Outputs and agreed actions, Cabinet Office, G8 UK.

  27. Hesmondhalgh, D. J. (2008). Cultural and creative industries. In T. Bennett & J. Frow (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of cultural analysis (pp. 553–569). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Horowitz, N. (2010). Art of the deal: Contemporary art in a global financial market. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hutter, M. (2014). Balanced investment. On speculation in the art market, Text Zur Kunst, March, pp. 80–95.

  30. Krippner, G. (2005). The financialization of the American economy. Socio-Economic Review, 3, 173–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lamont, M. (2012). Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 201–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Liebman, J., & Sellman, A. (2013). Social impact bonds: A guide for state and local governments. Harvard Kennedy School, Social Impact Bond Technical Assistance Lab.

  33. MacKenzie, D. (2006). An engine, not a camera: How financial models shape markets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  34. MacKenzie, D. (2009). Making things the same: Gases, emission rights and the politics of carbon markets. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, 440–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. MacKenzie, D., & Millo, Y. (2003). Constructing a market, performing theory: The historical sociology of a financial derivatives exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 109(1), 107–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Marcuse, H. (1964). One-dimensional man. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Morgan, J. P. (2010). Impact investments: An emerging asset class, report, Global Research.

  38. Morgan, J. P. (2012). A portfolio approach to impact investment. Global Social Finance Research.

  39. Morgan, J. P. (2014). The art of investing in art. Thought Magazine.

  40. Müller, J. (2013). An Accounting revolution? The financialisation of standard setting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. Corrected Proof, available on line 28 August 2013 (in press).

  41. Muniesa, F. (2011). A Flank Movement in the Understanding of Valuation. The Sociological Review, Special Issue: Sociological Review Monograph Series, L.Adkins & C. Lury (Eds.) Measure and Value, 59 (s2), 24–38.

  42. Parker, R. H. (1968). Discounted cash flow in historical perspective. Journal of Accounting Research, 6(1), 58–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Pestre, D. (2014). La mise en économie de l’environnement comme règle. Les fonctions et le rôle de l’OCDE, 1968–2012, unpublished working paper.

  44. Power, M. (1997). The audit society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Thévenot, L. (1984). Rules and implement: Investment in forms. Social Science Information, 23(1), 1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Tordjman, H., & Boisvert, V. (2012). L’idéologie marchande au service de la biodiversité ? Mouvements, 70(2), 31–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Van der Zwan, N. (2014). State of the art. Making sense of financialization. Socio-Economic Review, 12, 99–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Walter, C. (1996). Une histoire du concept d’efficience sur les marchés financiers. Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 51(4), 873–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Walter, C. (1999). Aux origines de la mesure de performance des fonds d’investissement. Histoire & Mesure, 14(1–2), 163–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Walter, C. (2006). Les martingales sur les marchés financiers. Une convention stochastique ? Revue de synthèse : 5e série, (2), 379-391.

  51. Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Young, J. J. (2006). Making up users. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31, 579–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Zelizer, V. (1985). Pricing the priceless child: The changing social value of children. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Zelizer, V. (1994). The social meaning of money. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Zhang, Y., & Andrew, J. (2013). Financialisation and the Conceptual Framework. Critical Perspective on Accounting, Corrected Proof, available on line 28 August 2013 (in press).

Download references

Acknowledgments

A previous version of this article was first presented in 2014 at two research seminars in Paris (LIRSA, CNAM Paris; Research Center for Capitalism, Globalization and Governance, ESSEC Paris) where it attracted a certain amount of pertinent criticism from attendees. I have had the opportunity to discuss part of this article at the “Numbers from the Bottom” workshop organized at Wiko in Berlin (March 2014) and with C. Baud and C. Walter. The comments of one anonymous reviewer and the two special issue guest editors were also very valuable. My thanks are extended to all. I am also indebted to Ann Gallon for her much appreciated editorial help.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eve Chiapello.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chiapello, E. Financialisation of Valuation. Hum Stud 38, 13–35 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-014-9337-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Financialisation
  • Valuation
  • Public policy