IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buspol/v18y2016i01p1-25_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceptions of the global financial crisis in the US, UK, Canada and Australia: a comparative editorial analysis of the legitimacy of finance

Author

Listed:
  • Mikler, John
  • Rajendra, Sundran
  • Elbra, Ainsley Dianne

Abstract

The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) is seen as arising from a new social structure of accumulation that institutionalised a neoliberal form of capitalism post the 1980s. This gave rise to “financialization,†which has increased both the power of financial markets over other economic sectors, and of financial market actors over national governments. However, while the neoliberal ideology underpinning financialization had a global impact, it sprang from the leading free market economies of the US and UK and was most readily embraced by states sharing their institutional support for it, such as Australia and Canada. But to what extent has it been questioned in these states since the crisis? In this article we examine perceptions of the legitimacy of finance via a 6 year comparative study of editorials in the mainstream press over 2007–2012. We do so because shifts in perceptions of the legitimacy suggest the extent to which the GFC produced the potential for more fundamental institutional change. We find that rather than this legitimacy having been undermined, or transformed, existing viewpoints instead hardened over the period considered. This indicates that, despite regulatory reform, the power of finance remains relatively unchanged.

Suggested Citation

  • Mikler, John & Rajendra, Sundran & Elbra, Ainsley Dianne, 2016. "Perceptions of the global financial crisis in the US, UK, Canada and Australia: a comparative editorial analysis of the legitimacy of finance," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 1-25, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:buspol:v:18:y:2016:i:01:p:1-25_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1369525800003624/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buspol:v:18:y:2016:i:01:p:1-25_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bap .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.