Critical Review
The politics of sovereign debt
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11635779 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jesse Hembruff (Queens University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2013 |
| Volume | 34 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 710-725 |
| Publication date | 2013-05-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Third World Quarterly (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0143-6597 • E-ISSN: 1360-2241 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/01436597.2013.786293 |
| OpenAlex | W2079937073 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
In this article, I interrogate what is meant by ‘the politics of sovereign debt’, and examine how various authors, especially David Graeber, have addressed this question. More specifically, I seek to extend my contribution to the goals of the ‘Repoliticizing Debt’ workshop, which inspired this special issue, by proposing a theoretical framework for understanding the role of sovereign debt in mediating the contradictions of neoliberal capitalism, and by challenging dominant treatments of the sovereign debt crisis currently underway in Greece. I argue that the existing literature fails to help grasp the complexity of sovereign debt as a social relation, and that debt must be understood as what Marx refers to as ‘fictitious capital’, that is, capital backed not by a commodity transaction, but by a claim on future value. The management of confidence in the value of fictitious capital through the use of the ‘golden noose’ of debt is the key process to be understood in order to grasp the complexity of sovereign debt crises
Capital (architecture · Capitalism · Debt · Economics · Political science · Politics · Sovereignty · Value (mathematics · Finance · Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism · Law · Political and Economic history of UK and US
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,5 |
| Citation span | 2020 - 2023 (4) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |