Financialization as Welfare

  • Philipp Golka


In this chapter, Golka provides an important analysis of impact investing proponents’ discourse by showing how they attempt to render for-profit investments as indispensable for questions of social welfare. Using the collective action frames perspective, Golka shows how an “under-investment” and an “impact” narrative are used to position impact investments as the solution to a number of social problems. However, Golka also analyzes the social problems proponents do not talk about and finds that issues relating to inequalities of wealth and income that pose a threat to investors’ profit-making abilities are consistently ignored in proponents’ discourse. By contrast, the financialization as welfare frame is highly attentive to British social welfare reform discourse, from where many of its concepts are borrowed.


  1. Beckert, J. (2016). Imagined futures. Fictional expectations and capitalist dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 611–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cornelissen, J. P., & Werner, M. D. (2014). Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 181–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2012). A theory of fields. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Forst, R. (2015b). Noumenal power. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(2), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Giddens, A. (1998). The third way: The renewal of social democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Konings, M. (2009). The construction of US financial power. Review of International Studies, 35(01), 69–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lamont, M. (2012). Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology, 38(1), 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lister, R. (1998). From equality to social inclusion: New labour and the welfare state. Critical Social Policy, 18(2), 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McAdam, D. (1982). Political process and the development of black insurgency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Seldon, A., & Finn, M. (Eds.). (2015). The coalition effect, 2010–2015. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197–217.Google Scholar
  14. Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tomaskovic-Devey, D., & Lin, K.-H. (2011). Income dynamics, economic rents, and the financialization of the US economy. American Sociological Review, 76(4), 538–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Vaisey, S. (2009). Motivation and justification: A dual-process model of culture in action. American Journal of Sociology, 114(6), 1675–1715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Worley, C. (2005). It’s not about race. It’s about the community’: New labour and ‘community cohesion. Critical Social Policy, 25(4), 483–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philipp Golka
    • 1
  1. 1.Sociology of Markets, Organizations and GovernanceFriedrich Schiller University JenaJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations