The Hegemony of Financial Stability

This chapter develops a specific methodological approach, which combines the theoretical frameworks of securitization with discourse theory of hegemony, particularly the works of Laclau and Mouffe, to understand how financial stability was constructed as a hegemonic claim. This discursive construction allowed financial and political elite to frame their interventions as necessary for the preservation of societal order, thereby sidestepping more radical critiques of the financial system. The chapter develops a specific methodology to investigate how hegemonies are weakened and (re-)established within the field of financial governance, using Laclau and Mouffe’s approach as a theory of how hegemony is established (and to some extent how it is maintained) and utilizing it as a theory of social constitution. As the dominance and hegemony of financial elites is often assumed but seldom explained, such an examination of how hegemony is established provides a more nuanced understanding for the post-crisis regulatory agenda. Laclau and Mouffe’s post-structuralist theoretical foundation complements theories of securitization that put their specific focus on security discourses and how these become politically relevant. Their analysis of how struggles for hegemony evolve enables me to show how demands and articulations from the financial and political spheres develop into a particular understanding of security. In addition, the theory of securitization, developed primarily by the so-called Copenhagen School, provides an understanding of how the perception of the financial crisis as a security problem created a sense of urgency and placed the issue in the highest political spheres. The chapter also explains the concrete methodological approach of this analysis and how expert interviews were used to compliment the discourse analysis.