ABSTRACT

Financialisation presents a constraint on state power. It also offers opportunities. State-led development, with the Asian experience at the forefront, is increasingly operationalised through different forms of state investment funds. Some of these funds have a strategic development mandate underwritten by a shareholder-value logic. While financialisation as a concept gives meaning to the embrace of the shareholder value model to explain the convergence of sovereign funds with operational practices and guiding norms of conventional financial market actors, it is insufficient in explaining how and why state investment funds differ from conventional financial actors and the underlying political dynamics that drive their emergence and evolution. To address this gap, this article advances three strategic logics: a developmental logic, a logic of regime maintenance, and a geo-political legitimacy logic. Reference to these logics provides a more nuanced understanding of state financialisation, avoiding a potentially narrow reading presented by the convergence dynamics inherent in the adoption of conventional financial practices. As such, this article contributes to emerging debates in political economy on the employment of financial logics in the pursuit of economic and political statecraft. The argument is developed empirically through an analysis of strategic investment funds in Singapore, Malaysia and Kazakhstan.

摘要

金融化限制了国家权力。它也提供了机会。以亚洲经验为先导的国家主导发展正越来越多地通过不同形式的国家投资基金来实施。其中一些基金具有由股东价值逻辑所支持的战略发展任务。虽然金融化作为一个概念赋予了股东价值模型的意义，以解释主权基金与传统金融市场参与者的运营实践和指导规范的融合，但它不足以解释国家投资基金如何以及为什么不同于传统金融参与者以及推动它们出现和演变的潜在政治动态。为了解决这一差距，本文提出了三个战略逻辑：发展逻辑，政权维护逻辑和地缘政治合法性逻辑。参考这些逻辑提供了对国家金融化的更细致入微的理解，避免了采用传统金融实践所固有的趋同动态所带来的潜在狭隘解读。因此，本文有助于政治经济学中关于在追求经济和政治治国方略中使用金融逻辑的新兴辩论。该论点是通过对新加坡、马来西亚和哈萨克斯坦的战略投资基金的分析得出的。避免采用传统金融实践所固有的趋同动态所带来的潜在狭隘解读。因此，本文有助于政治经济学中关于在追求经济和政治治国方略中使用金融逻辑的新兴辩论。该论点是通过对新加坡、马来西亚和哈萨克斯坦的战略投资基金的分析得出的。避免采用传统金融实践所固有的趋同动态所带来的潜在狭隘解读。因此，本文有助于政治经济学中关于在追求经济和政治治国方略中使用金融逻辑的新兴辩论。该论点是通过对新加坡、马来西亚和哈萨克斯坦的战略投资基金的分析得出的。