Abstract
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.
This new approach is built on a number of shared beliefs: that, in some cases, investment can be more effective than donations in helping the poor; that social motivations harnessed to financial ones can sometimes do good more effectively; and that in many situations there is no inevitable trade-off between financial and social return. (14_G8NAB_Invisible, p. 4)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Source: Speech by David Cameron at the launch of the G-8 Social Impact Investment Task Force on June 6th 2013, gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-ministers-speech-at-the-social-impact-investment-conference/ accessed September 12th 2017.
- 2.
Indeed, the term community as a reference to poor geographic neighborhoods, particularly those with high levels of immigrated or ethnical minority inhabitants, was introduced with New Labour’s discourse on social inclusion (Worley 2005).
- 3.
These organizations are defined as “the Embedded Model” that essentially denotes the social venture category that includes charitable and profit-distributing organizations (14_UKNAB_Building, p. 5).
- 4.
Again, in Chap. 7 I will show how combating this “silo-ed” funding was not only a core priority of Treasury-based modernizers, but also one of the two key issues in which other government departments saw a high legitimacy of Treasury-led interventions.
- 5.
The first British impact investor, Bridges Ventures, started by advancing venture capital principles in community enterprise, where previously lending dominated (see Chap. 7).
References
Beckert, J. (2016). Imagined futures. Fictional expectations and capitalist dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 611–639.
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.
Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2012). A theory of fields. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Forst, R. (2015b). Noumenal power. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(2), 111–127.
Giddens, A. (1998). The third way: The renewal of social democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Konings, M. (2009). The construction of US financial power. Review of International Studies, 35(01), 69–94.
Lamont, M. (2012). Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology, 38(1), 201–221.
Lister, R. (1998). From equality to social inclusion: New labour and the welfare state. Critical Social Policy, 18(2), 215–225.
McAdam, D. (1982). Political process and the development of black insurgency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seldon, A., & Finn, M. (Eds.). (2015). The coalition effect, 2010–2015. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197–217.
Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
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.
Vaisey, S. (2009). Motivation and justification: A dual-process model of culture in action. American Journal of Sociology, 114(6), 1675–1715.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Golka, P. (2019). Financialization as Welfare. In: Financialization as Welfare. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06100-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06100-5_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-06099-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-06100-5
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)