مسائل مالی گرایی: بازتاب انتقادی

Andersson et al. (this issue) add to developing literature on financialization in reflecting on the bio-pharma industry. Their theorising is both an account of a process of financialization and a problematisation with a substantive resonance. The concern here is to contribute to a critical appreciation of the problematics of financialization through reflecting upon the developing thesis as indicated in the Andersson et al.’s study.

Andersson et al. (this issue) offer an account of financialization and value on the market in elaborating their complementary financialized business model of small and medium-sized bio-pharma enterprises (SME bio-pharma). In so doing, they add to developing literature on financialization, providing an account of a financialization process and making provocative suggestions that help add to a financialization thesis as one that is critical in problematising financialization in context. Here, the concern is to contribute to a critique of financialization as a developing theorising in focusing upon the contribution of Andersson et al. (this issue). The structure of this commentary is as follows: a summary of Andersson et al. to bring out salient features of their thesis for the purposes of this commentary; a critical appreciation of the problematics of financialization elaborated by reference to a developing thesis of financialization as indicated in the Andersson et al.’s study (in relation to the wider literature on financialization); concluding comments. 2. Overview of key argumentation of Anderson et al.’s study As Andersson et al. (this issue) point out, a critical literature on financialization has been developing. One variant of it (subter) has been concerned to juxtapose capital market reality with a substantive socio-economic reality. The latter includes the strategic priorities of corporations and nations. That is, this literature is potentially critical, at least, in relation to several dimensions. It may problematise actual manifestations of financial value in the market and thus associated forms of governance at micro- and macro-levels. It may bring into question the structures within which, or in relation to which, governance beyond these structures, including markets, operate. 1 Further, to the extent that this literature gives substance to the view that corporations and governments do not trust the market place, this at least poses questions about the market (in regulatory context). 2 Such a critique is important and has a great potential. The emphasis of Andersson et al. (this issue) is the character of the bio-pharma industry. This is an industry in which enterprises are typically dependent on the capital market for funding because they usually need significant amounts of financial resource input during the early phases of product development – categorised by the authors into three phases. Andersson et al. (this issue) emphasise in relation to this the differentiation of their study from prior critical financialization studies, although it is worth already pointing out that it is also of relevance to stress the overlapping concerns with the past studies (albeit they are far from hidden, being indicated in the references cited) in terms of the critical appraisal involved (subter). The authors stress that information (e.g. a milestone report) plays a significant role in linking activities to funding. Favourable reports – in this industry, narratives about product achievement are likely to be more forthcoming than conventional corporate financial information – tend to increase the possibility of extra funding. The authors suggest that this will positively influence investment analyst opinions about value in the market place (and opportunities to buy or sell the investments). And they note that this helps to boost executive bonuses tied to the value of stock options.

As Andersson et al. (this issue) illustrates, a developing financialization thesis may be a provocative thesis that constitutes a critical problematisation. Weaknesses, however, include a lack of explicit questioning and critical argument informed by or integral to the thesis, failings to build the thesis through synthesis and development over time (if with necessary clarification and fairness and caution) and relative silence in respect of explicit elaboration of ways forward. I have related these points to a wider discussion of the area of financialization. And I have tried to give some pointers to the significant potential of studies in the financialization area, much of it currently unrealised.