LIST OF PANELS

The objective of this panel is to analyze the role of financial players and interests in shaping public policy. The financialization of the economy is a complex mutation, articulating the growing transfer of income from labor to capital, the domination of shareholders in companies, and the financialization of everyday life (Van der Zwan, 2014). Reversing the idea that states are the “victims” of finance, economic sociology and political economy emphasize the decisive role of regulators and states in the process of financialization (Krippner, 2011; Benquet, et al, 2019). Beyond financial regulation per se, a recent research program aims to analyze more generally the “financialization of public policies” (Chiapello, 2017), i.e. the way in which public policies incorporate financialized reasoning and visions in a growing number of sectors, from development (Ducastel, 2016) to social policies (Buffa et al., 2021). Symmetrically, social studies of finance show that financial players integrate the regulatory environment into their investment strategies, and carry out political work to shape regulation to their interests.

The panel calls for an increased dialogue between public policy analysis and social studies of finance, esp. STS (Doganova et al., 2014; Muniesa et al., eds, 2017) and political economy (Blyth 2009; Smith, Hay, 2018; John 2018). Existing research in political economy often overcomes the role of the finance industry in favor of more traditional industrial or banking sectors (Gayon, Leclerc, 2022) or only partially accounts for the role of public policy in shaping finance (Christophers, 2024; Thiemann, 2024; Gabor, 2020). To study the “boundary work” (Boussard, ed., 2018) of financialization at the interface between investors and regulators, several hypotheses can be explored. First, the study of policy instruments (Halpern, Lascoumes, Le Galès, dir., 2014; Chiapello, Gilbert, 2013) makes it possible to analyze how the tools developed by regulators tend to become imbued with financial logics; and, conversely, how public policy instruments enter into investors' calculations. This "boundary work" can also be explored through the prism of careers (François and Lemercier, 2016), as well as through lobbying practices (circulation of wordings and frameworks, policy alliances, etc.)  Finally, this panel could address - but not be limited to - the counterforces to financialization within public policy, such as resistance from civil society (eg. Finance Watch) or alternative policy methods (eg. planning), quantified objectives (eg. use value), or content (eg. investment policy), while paying attention to somehow surprising ties between civil society organizations and financial actors (Bereni, Dubuisson-Quellier, 2021).

We invite to shed empirical light both on the process of financialization of public policies and on the co-production of regulations by asset managers alongside national, EU, and international politico-administrative bodies. A variety of sectors may be considered (health, agriculture, environment, housing, etc.), as well as comparative and socio-historical perspectives. We welcome papers that address analytical and methodological issues at the intersection of public policy and financialization/assetization. Specifically, we are particularly interested in papers that offer detailed observations of the following:

- Studies of the production and circulation of financialized knowledge, instruments, and techniques (i) between private and public actors, (ii) across different policy levels (national, EU, international), (iii) across policy sectors (eg from development to social policies);

- Micro-analyses of the way financial returns capitalize upon specific policy tools (public-private partnerships, tax incentives, blended finance) as well as more macro-analyses of the co-production 'enabling regulatory environments' for investors

- Genealogical perspectives that articulate discourses on “the need for financing” of public actors and the transformation of practices and tools/financial channels 

While looking at the counterforces to financialization and the way policy actors and public opinion might constrain financial interests, one could consider for instance:

-  The diversity of interests between financial actors and the way they are related to divisions within States or other regulatory arenas (with the hypothesis of homologies between the political and the financial field);

- The forms of alliance between civil society organizations/social movements and financial actors and interests (eg in ‘green finance’ with ecological compensation markets)