TY - BOOK

T1 - The grammar of money

T2 - an analytical account of money as a discursive institution in light of the practice of complementary currencies

AU - Bindewald, Leander

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Since the global financial crisis in 2008, complementary currencies - fromlocal initiatives like the Brixton Pound to timebanks, business-to-businesscurrencies and, of course, Bitcoin - have received unprecedented attention byacademics, policy makers, the media and the general public. However, atclose theoretic inspection money itself remains as elusive a phenomenon aswater must be to fish. Economic and business disciplines commonly onlydescribe the use and functionality of money rather than its nature. Sociologyand philosophy have a more fundamental set of approaches, but remainlargely unintegrated in financial policy and common perception. At the sametime, new forms of currency challenge predominant definitions of money andtheir implementation in the law and financial regulation. Unless ourunderstanding of money and currencies is questioned and extended toconsistently reflect theory and practice, its current misalignment threatens toimpede much needed reform and innovation of the financial systems towardsequity, democratic participation and sustainability. After reviewing currentmonetary theories and their epistemological underpinning, this thesisproposes a new theoretic framework of money as a ‘discursive institution’ thatcan be applied coherently to all monetary phenomena, conventional andunconventional. It also allows for the empirical analysis of currencies with themethodologies of neo-institutionalism, practice theory and critical discourseanalysis. This will here be demonstrated in a transdisciplinary triangulationconcerning three sets of data from the diverse field of complementarycurrencies, the publications of the Bank of England and monetary laws fromthe United States. The findings do not only demonstrate the heuristic value ofthe theory of discursive institutionalism in regard to money andcomplementary currencies, but highlight how regulatory and legal definitionseven of conventional money lack the coherence and clarity required toappropriately explicate monetary innovation. Accordingly, this study concludeswith recommendations for monetary theory, policy and research that canaddress the current inconsistencies.

AB - Since the global financial crisis in 2008, complementary currencies - fromlocal initiatives like the Brixton Pound to timebanks, business-to-businesscurrencies and, of course, Bitcoin - have received unprecedented attention byacademics, policy makers, the media and the general public. However, atclose theoretic inspection money itself remains as elusive a phenomenon aswater must be to fish. Economic and business disciplines commonly onlydescribe the use and functionality of money rather than its nature. Sociologyand philosophy have a more fundamental set of approaches, but remainlargely unintegrated in financial policy and common perception. At the sametime, new forms of currency challenge predominant definitions of money andtheir implementation in the law and financial regulation. Unless ourunderstanding of money and currencies is questioned and extended toconsistently reflect theory and practice, its current misalignment threatens toimpede much needed reform and innovation of the financial systems towardsequity, democratic participation and sustainability. After reviewing currentmonetary theories and their epistemological underpinning, this thesisproposes a new theoretic framework of money as a ‘discursive institution’ thatcan be applied coherently to all monetary phenomena, conventional andunconventional. It also allows for the empirical analysis of currencies with themethodologies of neo-institutionalism, practice theory and critical discourseanalysis. This will here be demonstrated in a transdisciplinary triangulationconcerning three sets of data from the diverse field of complementarycurrencies, the publications of the Bank of England and monetary laws fromthe United States. The findings do not only demonstrate the heuristic value ofthe theory of discursive institutionalism in regard to money andcomplementary currencies, but highlight how regulatory and legal definitionseven of conventional money lack the coherence and clarity required toappropriately explicate monetary innovation. Accordingly, this study concludeswith recommendations for monetary theory, policy and research that canaddress the current inconsistencies.

U2 - 10.17635/lancaster/thesis/427

DO - 10.17635/lancaster/thesis/427

M3 - Doctoral Thesis

PB - Lancaster University

ER -