La monnaie a été étudiée par des économistes hétérodoxes, des sociologues et des historiens qui ont souligné ses rapports à l'ordre collectif, mais elle n'est que rarement analysée sous l'angle de la citoyenneté. Notre thèse propose une réflexion théorique sur quatre types de fonctions (politique, symbolique, socioéconomique et psychoaffective) qui permettent à la monnaie de jouer un rôle de médiation de la citoyenneté. A partir d'une perspective qui combine les apports de l'économie politique internationale et de l'école de la régulation, nous montrons que cette médiation ne mobilise pas seulement des mécanismes sociopolitiques nationaux, mais aussi des mécanismes internationaux qui rétroagissent sur la sphère domestique des États et affectent leur capacité à définir leur régime de citoyenneté. Cette relation est analysée dans le contexte de l'institutionnalisation du système monétaire international de Bretton Woods (1944) et du développement de la globalisation financière depuis les années 1970. Si la monnaie a été mise au service d'un principe de protection des droits sociaux des citoyens contre les pressions financières extérieures après la Seconde guerre mondiale, elle contribue aujourd'hui à l'ouverture de la sphère domestique des Etats aux flux de capitaux transnationaux et à la création d'un ordre politique et juridique favorable aux droits des investisseurs. Cette dynamique est impulsée par l'essor de nouveaux intermédiaires financiers (notamment les agences de notation et les investisseurs institutionnels) et l'émergence concomitante d'une nouvelle forme d'Etat légitimée à partir d'un discours politique néolibéral insistant sur la quête de compétitivité, la réduction de la protection sociale et la responsabilisation individuelle. Elle se traduit par la privatisation des régimes de retraite et le développement des politiques d'éducation financière qui incitent les citoyens à se comporter en « preneurs de risques » actifs et responsables, assurant eux-mêmes leur sécurité économique à travers le placement de leur épargne retraite sur les marchés financiers. Nous soulignons toutefois les difficultés institutionnelles, cognitives et socioéconomiques qui rendent cette transformation de la citoyenneté contradictoire et problématique.
Money has been studied by heterodox economists, sociologists and historians who stressed its relationship to collective order. However, it has hardly been analysed from the viewpoint of its relationship to citizenship. We propose a theoretical account of four types of functions (political, symbolic, socioeconomic and psychoaffective) enabling money to operate as a mediation of citizenship. From a perspective that combines the contributions of international political economy and the regulation school, we show that this mediation mobilises not only national sociopolitical mechanisms, but also international mechanisms which feed back on the domestic sphere of states and affect their capacity to define their regime of citizenship. This relationship is analysed in the context of the institutionalisation of the international monetary system of Bretton Woods (1944) and the development of financial globalization since the 1970s. If money has served to protect the social rights of citizens against external financial pressures after the Second World War, today it contributes to the opening of the domestic sphere of states to transnational capital flows and to the creation of a political and legal order favorable to the rights of investors. This dynamic is driven by the rise of new financial intermediaries (in particular rating agencies and institutional investisors) and the simultaneous emergence of a new form of state legitimized from a neoliberal political discourse emphasizing the quest for competitiveness, reduced social protection and individual responsibilization. It results in the privatization of pension systems and the development of policies of financial education that encourage citizens to behave as active and responsible « risk takers », ensuring their own economic security through the investment of their savings retirement on financial markets. However, we emphasize the institutional, cognitive and socioeconomic difficulties that make this transformation of citizenship contradictory and problematic.
-
Money has been studied by heterodox economists, sociologists and historians who stressed its relationship to collective order. However, it has hardly been analysed from the viewpoint of its relationship to citizenship. We propose a theoretical account of four types of functions (political, symbolic, socioeconomic and psychoaffective) enabling money to operate as a mediation of citizenship. From a perspective that combines the contributions of international political economy and the regulation school, we show that this mediation mobilises not only national sociopolitical mechanisms, but also international mechanisms which feed back on the domestic sphere of states and affect their capacity to define their regime of citizenship. This relationship is analysed in the context of the institutionalisation of the international monetary system of Bretton Woods (1944) and the development of financial globalization since the 1970s. If money has served to protect the social rights of citizens against external financial pressures after the Second World War, today it contributes to the opening of the domestic sphere of states to transnational capital flows and to the creation of a political and legal order favorable to the rights of investors. This dynamic is driven by the rise of new financial intermediaries (in particular rating agencies and institutional investisors) and the simultaneous emergence of a new form of state legitimized from a neoliberal political discourse emphasizing the quest for competitiveness, reduced social protection and individual responsibilization. It results in the privatization of pension systems and the development of policies of financial education that encourage citizens to behave as active and responsible « risk takers », ensuring their own economic security through the investment of their savings retirement on financial markets. However, we emphasize the institutional, cognitive and socioeconomic difficulties that make this transformation of citizenship problematic.