For the most part of the book, I applied theoretical frames from cultural sociology and economic ... more For the most part of the book, I applied theoretical frames from cultural sociology and economic sociology to establish the dynamics and components of the social process I call festivalization. In Part 4, I changed tactics in order to provide a more general-sociological perspective on the eventization of the economy and society to show how this phenomenon can be incorporated in contemporary theories of capitalism. Chapter 11 asked how the affected self could be incorporated into Weber's work on authority and if authority by affective order was possible. This is important because the aesthetic-digital economy provides special incentives to create immersive environments that are forms of postmodern governmentality. Using Baumann's reconstruction of Weber's authority and power conceptions, I argued that persuasive power and sanctioning power must be understood as pervasive today and that they can explain the rise of philanthropy as an 'older affect culture' which was once relatively marginal to modern society as an exclusive domain of elites. In the support of public events common to the Post-Keynesian National State, philanthropy couples with the creativity imperative, achieving a form of persuasive patronage which finds its expression in a historically elaborate form of imagined civil society that is supported by institutional arrangements across geopolitical levels and regions. The festival event is a case of an 'affective space' , which in the aggregate establishes an 'affective order' through creation of 'affected communities' in accelerated patterns). Rather than patronage, many philanthropic practices and actors engage in the semantics of conviviality, which furthers participation by mainly but not exclusively the middle classes, thereby the diffusion of a culture of benevolence. Chapter 12 used the grants-economics conception by Boulding to show that 'economies of love' are the key pillars of the process of culturalization and culture-oriented governmentality. Propositions of economization, as found in festival scholarship, therefore require adjustment, taking into account the dynamics of intertwined grant-economic and market-economic processes, the study of which may lead to better understanding of the power relations in the cinema field. The analysis of cinema subsidies shows festival nonprofits as elements in valorizing networks supporting business and political elites' alliances-raising the issue of elites in cultural fields and civil society organizations. Chapter 13 examined philanthropy-state relationships with respect to the discourse of civil society. I argued that the welfare-state model has been
This chapter prepares the ground for valuation-sociological and economicsociological perspectives... more This chapter prepares the ground for valuation-sociological and economicsociological perspectives on film festivals as participants to economic coordination. Exploring questions such as how one can conceptualize intermediation by arts nonprofits producing seasonal events, how the upsurge of such organizations in many industries can be explained, and how the 'infinite variety' of film festival productions can be made sense of, the chapter starts with the introduction of the first organizational hypothesis on events (Lampel & Meyer, 2008). Providing an opening for the connection between this institutional approach and poststructuralist theory (Moebius & Reckwitz, 2018), it shows how 'aesthetic rationalization' can be grasped at the level of art worlds and arts nonprofits by engaging formal organizational analysis. The chapter demonstrates that mimetic processes and the production of social capital are related to the spread of nonprofit events according to a logic of 'cultural economism' (Reckwitz, 2017a, pp. 150-151). Marketization occurs across many practices while the market form has changed, which Chapter 4 discusses with respect to the ubiquity of the eventive nonprofit form. This conceptual shaping of the organizations of Reckwitz's aesthetic capitalism leads to the discussion of their economic behaviors and functions in Chapter 5, where I present Karpik's framework (2010) as a means to illuminate the market form of film festival intermediation and its arranger qualities. Chapter 6 adds further to analysis, by putting the intermediary hypothesis (see Chapter 1) to a statistical test. Combining a movie-performance model for festival participation with a sample of US movies participating in film festivals, I provide evidence for a 'festival effect'. Moving from cultural sociology to economic and organizational sociology, the chapters ascertain Reckwitz's claim that the postmodern art field has indeed become the resource-rich center of society. 1 Festival Events and Field Configuration The concept of the 'field-configuring event' (abbreviated to fce hereafter) originates from Joseph Lampel and Alan Meyer's essay (2008) and is incorporated in further work by Lampel on 'value negotiations' in cultural-economic contexts (Moeran & Strandgaard Pedersen, 2011). The fce hypothesis, the study of phenomena such as conferences, business conventions, award
A spirit of capitalism will only be consolidated if its justifications are concretized, that is, ... more A spirit of capitalism will only be consolidated if its justifications are concretized, that is, if it makes the persons it is addressing more aware of the issues that are really at stake, and offers them action models that they will actually be able to use. boltanski & chiapello, 2005b, pp. 163-164 ∵ Searching for the meaning of the observable spread of cultural nonprofitorganized events produced by volunteer labor and supported by grants and gifts globally, I set out to study the festivalization of capitalism as it manifests itself in the late-modern eventization in the cinema field, showing off in a mix of positivity, creativity, and meritocracy principles. I specifically aimed at demonstrating that previous explanations for the growth spurt in such celebrations of culture remains incomplete as long as eventization is solely attributed to neoliberal forces in economy and polity. Instead, I argued that this social process attains some of its force from the rationalization of charity and philanthropy and the associated rise of wealth elites who wield their influence in the aesthetic-digital economy and the political sphere. Following the demand for a "viable and sustained theory" of the economic model underlying the film festival (Rhyne, 2009, p. 9), I have gone beyond the convention of studying the 'festival sector' and the 'economy of public and private subsidy' by exploring how festival culture, once deemed alien to capitalism as inutile leisure, is now fully incorporated in its economy. As an experience-maker, the festival can make a center-stage appearance in economic coordination and be of great benefit to an array of actor groups while simultaneously reproducing precarious cultural labor. I have demonstrated how the relationship between eventization and capitalism has, firstly, been shaped and driven by an intertwining of creativity and philanthropy ideals and ideologies, and, secondly, plays into the interests of policy makers and social elites seeking social legitimacy in times of great uncertainty, rampant global poverty, and inequality (Piketty, 2015). Festivals, I reason, have been conditioned by a public culture that itself is the result of a relatively fast happening institutionalization of a broad discursive and organizational formation: Tocquevillean civil society. This cultural and material web of actors, forms, and processes,
This note contains details on methodological strategy and decisions that led to the presented mod... more This note contains details on methodological strategy and decisions that led to the presented models for the 'festival effect' .
The hard thing is actually getting people to pay you for your knowledge, because especially if yo... more The hard thing is actually getting people to pay you for your knowledge, because especially if you work in an environment like this in the festival in [Europe, in International film festivals-a.v.], where the festival is paying you to give your knowledge to people for free. Then, when you're outside of the festival, I know there are quite a few people who charge consultancy fees for doing what we do for free within the festival, but once you've developed relationships with filmmakers it's hard to say 'well, I'm on my own time now and I'll work with you to a certain extent but actually if I'm going to do more, you're going to have to pay me'. British festival staff … I've never thought about it that way. Ideally there should be enough money to pay everyone that's working with the festival. Swedish festival volunteer ∵ This last chapter in Part 3 addresses the question of where people 'draw the line' when it comes to working for free in a charismatic organization that aims to survive in organizational environments associated with uncertain future labor-market outcomes, and winner-take-all markets (Frank & Cook, 2010). The previous chapters have demonstrated how risk-spreading is even common at the periphery of sites where core artistic occupations work, how at least some workers have to accept precarious living conditions, and identified the film festival as a type of event-project organizations which offer experiences of value to labor market participation in exchange for volunteered labor. But where do people 'draw the line'? What is acceptable and where and why does disagreement start? Once more the set of European and Australian festival
Festival Devices Consumers will look at 'the leaves' and buy, even if they don't know shit about ... more Festival Devices Consumers will look at 'the leaves' and buy, even if they don't know shit about the festival. Hong Kong festival manager ∵ The original proposition that film festivals partake in 'value-adding process' mainly emphasizes reputation-making and the formation of cultural capital through festival intermediation processes (De Valck, 2007, pp. 125-128), with researchers only recently advocating more strongly more research on this phenomenon as part of a larger scenario, the cinema value chain and valueadding processes (Burgess, 2020). This chapter proposes film festivals as active in market organization which builds around the production of singularities. Singularities are the essential goods and services of the aesthetic economy and, as discussed in Chapter 4, require extra-commercial assessment. An example are the laurels bestowed in many festival award ceremonies on films and cultural producers. Festivals thus aid economic coordination, which can be approached systematically by taking a valuation-sociological perspective. The chapter's exploratory analysis of festival intermediation is aided by the comprehensive typology of 'regimes of economic coordination' (Karpik, 2010), which permits us to go not only beyond the reputation-making proposition but to go beyond the global value chain framework (Gereffi et al., 2005) in the study of valuation. Whereas mainstream economics regards the market price as the principal organizing process of capitalist economies, valuation scholars take a broader look at market organization. They see economic coordination involving the "social organization that brings consumers and experts into communicative exchange to discuss the objects for sale" and "the faculty to attribute to object's qualities that exist only in the imagination" (Beckert, 2011, pp. 112, 119), which, as Chapter 4 showed, also pertains to events in organizational fields. Karpik's 'economics of singularities' offers a theory about goods and services coordination that the market of mainstream economics cannot handle. These goods and services (goods hereafter, unless the service phenomenon becomes relevant to specific discussions) are not standardized (homogeneous) and
In order to establish this 'acceptable equilibrium' and produce this new form of 'poverty' , neol... more In order to establish this 'acceptable equilibrium' and produce this new form of 'poverty' , neoliberals use institutions of the Welfare State, which they always opposed because it produces 'social property' , overturning the functions and ends they were meant to fulfil. They have learned to tame its institutions and make them serve the ends of neoliberal capitalism, in much the same way as they have tamed democratic institutions to ensure they remain dominated by an 'oligarchy of wealth'. lazzarato, 2009, p. 128 ∵ In this last chapter, I explore 'the knot that ties' festivalization to capitalism, as interlinkage between a quasi-linguistic structure of formally planned yet practically spontaneous encounters in the organized immersive environments and maintained by an 'informal lexical stability' (Elsaesser, 2005) with capitalism as "a spectacular case of a power-laden yet long-enduring structure" marked by a "surface instability" emerging from the core procedure of capitalism-the interconvertibility of values into exchange value, with the commodity form "making almost all resources readable as exchangeable commodities" (Sewell, 2005, pp. 145-151). Taking Sewell's perspective (adopted from Charles Sabel), I will reconstruct this relationship, keeping in mind that capitalism is dynamic, showing high compatibility with a "wide variety of institutional arrangements and property relations" (2005, p. 149). Following Sewell's assessment of political structures, the state is characterized by large power concentrations. Political structures can vary as to their depth (institutedness) and thus durability. The bureaucratic form is extremely durable, adjusting to the social process of aestheticization as Chapters 4 and 7 have discussed. Languages as structures, to which I equate what I have studied as the festivalization of the cinema field, are deep and durable but, according to Sewell, characteristically weak in power. Festivals represent the combination of low power and durability which they attain from a larger formation of discourse pertaining to communication and postmodern culture (see Chapter 12).
nv reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use. This book is printed ... more nv reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner. The Open Access publication of this book is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (dfg, German Research Foundation)-Projektnummer 502058482. This is an open access title distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided no alterations are made and the original author(s) and source are credited. Further information and the complete license text can be found at https:// crea tive comm ons.org/ licen ses/ by-nc-nd/ 4.0/ Contents Acknowledgments xi List of Figures and Tables xiv Introduction 1 Film Festivals, Introducing a Global Population 18 Part 1 Affordances 1 Film Festivals and Festivalization 35 1 Film Festival Research in the Cinema Field 35 1.1 Propositions for Film Festivals 36 1.2 Historical Origins 37 1.3 Contemporary State-Festival Relationships 39 1.4 Within-Population Differentiation 39 1.5 Center/ Periphery in the Cinema Field 41 1.6 Festivals as Counter-Culture and Sites for Identity-Politics 42
This essay investigates how, why and with what results the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) influenced... more This essay investigates how, why and with what results the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) influenced the development of UK economics between 1930 and 1950. It shows the extent to which the RF, as the major sponsor of the newly emerging ‘applied economics’ research in the US and Europe, shaped the conversion of newly emerging macroeconomic theory into policy and research, and steered the fast expanding ‘applied’ economics in an econometric direction based on newly available national accounts data. The RF played a decisive role in selecting the economists retained for applied research when World War 2 ended, and with it the type of work funded. We argue that the RF’s preference for financing stand-alone institutes restrained the initial expansion of England’s applied economics research despite a head-start on national income accounting and business-focused research. Drawing on unpublished correspondence between John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) and senior RF officers, we show how the diffi...
For the most part of the book, I applied theoretical frames from cultural sociology and economic ... more For the most part of the book, I applied theoretical frames from cultural sociology and economic sociology to establish the dynamics and components of the social process I call festivalization. In Part 4, I changed tactics in order to provide a more general-sociological perspective on the eventization of the economy and society to show how this phenomenon can be incorporated in contemporary theories of capitalism. Chapter 11 asked how the affected self could be incorporated into Weber's work on authority and if authority by affective order was possible. This is important because the aesthetic-digital economy provides special incentives to create immersive environments that are forms of postmodern governmentality. Using Baumann's reconstruction of Weber's authority and power conceptions, I argued that persuasive power and sanctioning power must be understood as pervasive today and that they can explain the rise of philanthropy as an 'older affect culture' which was once relatively marginal to modern society as an exclusive domain of elites. In the support of public events common to the Post-Keynesian National State, philanthropy couples with the creativity imperative, achieving a form of persuasive patronage which finds its expression in a historically elaborate form of imagined civil society that is supported by institutional arrangements across geopolitical levels and regions. The festival event is a case of an 'affective space' , which in the aggregate establishes an 'affective order' through creation of 'affected communities' in accelerated patterns). Rather than patronage, many philanthropic practices and actors engage in the semantics of conviviality, which furthers participation by mainly but not exclusively the middle classes, thereby the diffusion of a culture of benevolence. Chapter 12 used the grants-economics conception by Boulding to show that 'economies of love' are the key pillars of the process of culturalization and culture-oriented governmentality. Propositions of economization, as found in festival scholarship, therefore require adjustment, taking into account the dynamics of intertwined grant-economic and market-economic processes, the study of which may lead to better understanding of the power relations in the cinema field. The analysis of cinema subsidies shows festival nonprofits as elements in valorizing networks supporting business and political elites' alliances-raising the issue of elites in cultural fields and civil society organizations. Chapter 13 examined philanthropy-state relationships with respect to the discourse of civil society. I argued that the welfare-state model has been
This chapter prepares the ground for valuation-sociological and economicsociological perspectives... more This chapter prepares the ground for valuation-sociological and economicsociological perspectives on film festivals as participants to economic coordination. Exploring questions such as how one can conceptualize intermediation by arts nonprofits producing seasonal events, how the upsurge of such organizations in many industries can be explained, and how the 'infinite variety' of film festival productions can be made sense of, the chapter starts with the introduction of the first organizational hypothesis on events (Lampel & Meyer, 2008). Providing an opening for the connection between this institutional approach and poststructuralist theory (Moebius & Reckwitz, 2018), it shows how 'aesthetic rationalization' can be grasped at the level of art worlds and arts nonprofits by engaging formal organizational analysis. The chapter demonstrates that mimetic processes and the production of social capital are related to the spread of nonprofit events according to a logic of 'cultural economism' (Reckwitz, 2017a, pp. 150-151). Marketization occurs across many practices while the market form has changed, which Chapter 4 discusses with respect to the ubiquity of the eventive nonprofit form. This conceptual shaping of the organizations of Reckwitz's aesthetic capitalism leads to the discussion of their economic behaviors and functions in Chapter 5, where I present Karpik's framework (2010) as a means to illuminate the market form of film festival intermediation and its arranger qualities. Chapter 6 adds further to analysis, by putting the intermediary hypothesis (see Chapter 1) to a statistical test. Combining a movie-performance model for festival participation with a sample of US movies participating in film festivals, I provide evidence for a 'festival effect'. Moving from cultural sociology to economic and organizational sociology, the chapters ascertain Reckwitz's claim that the postmodern art field has indeed become the resource-rich center of society. 1 Festival Events and Field Configuration The concept of the 'field-configuring event' (abbreviated to fce hereafter) originates from Joseph Lampel and Alan Meyer's essay (2008) and is incorporated in further work by Lampel on 'value negotiations' in cultural-economic contexts (Moeran & Strandgaard Pedersen, 2011). The fce hypothesis, the study of phenomena such as conferences, business conventions, award
A spirit of capitalism will only be consolidated if its justifications are concretized, that is, ... more A spirit of capitalism will only be consolidated if its justifications are concretized, that is, if it makes the persons it is addressing more aware of the issues that are really at stake, and offers them action models that they will actually be able to use. boltanski & chiapello, 2005b, pp. 163-164 ∵ Searching for the meaning of the observable spread of cultural nonprofitorganized events produced by volunteer labor and supported by grants and gifts globally, I set out to study the festivalization of capitalism as it manifests itself in the late-modern eventization in the cinema field, showing off in a mix of positivity, creativity, and meritocracy principles. I specifically aimed at demonstrating that previous explanations for the growth spurt in such celebrations of culture remains incomplete as long as eventization is solely attributed to neoliberal forces in economy and polity. Instead, I argued that this social process attains some of its force from the rationalization of charity and philanthropy and the associated rise of wealth elites who wield their influence in the aesthetic-digital economy and the political sphere. Following the demand for a "viable and sustained theory" of the economic model underlying the film festival (Rhyne, 2009, p. 9), I have gone beyond the convention of studying the 'festival sector' and the 'economy of public and private subsidy' by exploring how festival culture, once deemed alien to capitalism as inutile leisure, is now fully incorporated in its economy. As an experience-maker, the festival can make a center-stage appearance in economic coordination and be of great benefit to an array of actor groups while simultaneously reproducing precarious cultural labor. I have demonstrated how the relationship between eventization and capitalism has, firstly, been shaped and driven by an intertwining of creativity and philanthropy ideals and ideologies, and, secondly, plays into the interests of policy makers and social elites seeking social legitimacy in times of great uncertainty, rampant global poverty, and inequality (Piketty, 2015). Festivals, I reason, have been conditioned by a public culture that itself is the result of a relatively fast happening institutionalization of a broad discursive and organizational formation: Tocquevillean civil society. This cultural and material web of actors, forms, and processes,
This note contains details on methodological strategy and decisions that led to the presented mod... more This note contains details on methodological strategy and decisions that led to the presented models for the 'festival effect' .
The hard thing is actually getting people to pay you for your knowledge, because especially if yo... more The hard thing is actually getting people to pay you for your knowledge, because especially if you work in an environment like this in the festival in [Europe, in International film festivals-a.v.], where the festival is paying you to give your knowledge to people for free. Then, when you're outside of the festival, I know there are quite a few people who charge consultancy fees for doing what we do for free within the festival, but once you've developed relationships with filmmakers it's hard to say 'well, I'm on my own time now and I'll work with you to a certain extent but actually if I'm going to do more, you're going to have to pay me'. British festival staff … I've never thought about it that way. Ideally there should be enough money to pay everyone that's working with the festival. Swedish festival volunteer ∵ This last chapter in Part 3 addresses the question of where people 'draw the line' when it comes to working for free in a charismatic organization that aims to survive in organizational environments associated with uncertain future labor-market outcomes, and winner-take-all markets (Frank & Cook, 2010). The previous chapters have demonstrated how risk-spreading is even common at the periphery of sites where core artistic occupations work, how at least some workers have to accept precarious living conditions, and identified the film festival as a type of event-project organizations which offer experiences of value to labor market participation in exchange for volunteered labor. But where do people 'draw the line'? What is acceptable and where and why does disagreement start? Once more the set of European and Australian festival
Festival Devices Consumers will look at 'the leaves' and buy, even if they don't know shit about ... more Festival Devices Consumers will look at 'the leaves' and buy, even if they don't know shit about the festival. Hong Kong festival manager ∵ The original proposition that film festivals partake in 'value-adding process' mainly emphasizes reputation-making and the formation of cultural capital through festival intermediation processes (De Valck, 2007, pp. 125-128), with researchers only recently advocating more strongly more research on this phenomenon as part of a larger scenario, the cinema value chain and valueadding processes (Burgess, 2020). This chapter proposes film festivals as active in market organization which builds around the production of singularities. Singularities are the essential goods and services of the aesthetic economy and, as discussed in Chapter 4, require extra-commercial assessment. An example are the laurels bestowed in many festival award ceremonies on films and cultural producers. Festivals thus aid economic coordination, which can be approached systematically by taking a valuation-sociological perspective. The chapter's exploratory analysis of festival intermediation is aided by the comprehensive typology of 'regimes of economic coordination' (Karpik, 2010), which permits us to go not only beyond the reputation-making proposition but to go beyond the global value chain framework (Gereffi et al., 2005) in the study of valuation. Whereas mainstream economics regards the market price as the principal organizing process of capitalist economies, valuation scholars take a broader look at market organization. They see economic coordination involving the "social organization that brings consumers and experts into communicative exchange to discuss the objects for sale" and "the faculty to attribute to object's qualities that exist only in the imagination" (Beckert, 2011, pp. 112, 119), which, as Chapter 4 showed, also pertains to events in organizational fields. Karpik's 'economics of singularities' offers a theory about goods and services coordination that the market of mainstream economics cannot handle. These goods and services (goods hereafter, unless the service phenomenon becomes relevant to specific discussions) are not standardized (homogeneous) and
In order to establish this 'acceptable equilibrium' and produce this new form of 'poverty' , neol... more In order to establish this 'acceptable equilibrium' and produce this new form of 'poverty' , neoliberals use institutions of the Welfare State, which they always opposed because it produces 'social property' , overturning the functions and ends they were meant to fulfil. They have learned to tame its institutions and make them serve the ends of neoliberal capitalism, in much the same way as they have tamed democratic institutions to ensure they remain dominated by an 'oligarchy of wealth'. lazzarato, 2009, p. 128 ∵ In this last chapter, I explore 'the knot that ties' festivalization to capitalism, as interlinkage between a quasi-linguistic structure of formally planned yet practically spontaneous encounters in the organized immersive environments and maintained by an 'informal lexical stability' (Elsaesser, 2005) with capitalism as "a spectacular case of a power-laden yet long-enduring structure" marked by a "surface instability" emerging from the core procedure of capitalism-the interconvertibility of values into exchange value, with the commodity form "making almost all resources readable as exchangeable commodities" (Sewell, 2005, pp. 145-151). Taking Sewell's perspective (adopted from Charles Sabel), I will reconstruct this relationship, keeping in mind that capitalism is dynamic, showing high compatibility with a "wide variety of institutional arrangements and property relations" (2005, p. 149). Following Sewell's assessment of political structures, the state is characterized by large power concentrations. Political structures can vary as to their depth (institutedness) and thus durability. The bureaucratic form is extremely durable, adjusting to the social process of aestheticization as Chapters 4 and 7 have discussed. Languages as structures, to which I equate what I have studied as the festivalization of the cinema field, are deep and durable but, according to Sewell, characteristically weak in power. Festivals represent the combination of low power and durability which they attain from a larger formation of discourse pertaining to communication and postmodern culture (see Chapter 12).
nv reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use. This book is printed ... more nv reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner. The Open Access publication of this book is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (dfg, German Research Foundation)-Projektnummer 502058482. This is an open access title distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided no alterations are made and the original author(s) and source are credited. Further information and the complete license text can be found at https:// crea tive comm ons.org/ licen ses/ by-nc-nd/ 4.0/ Contents Acknowledgments xi List of Figures and Tables xiv Introduction 1 Film Festivals, Introducing a Global Population 18 Part 1 Affordances 1 Film Festivals and Festivalization 35 1 Film Festival Research in the Cinema Field 35 1.1 Propositions for Film Festivals 36 1.2 Historical Origins 37 1.3 Contemporary State-Festival Relationships 39 1.4 Within-Population Differentiation 39 1.5 Center/ Periphery in the Cinema Field 41 1.6 Festivals as Counter-Culture and Sites for Identity-Politics 42
This essay investigates how, why and with what results the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) influenced... more This essay investigates how, why and with what results the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) influenced the development of UK economics between 1930 and 1950. It shows the extent to which the RF, as the major sponsor of the newly emerging ‘applied economics’ research in the US and Europe, shaped the conversion of newly emerging macroeconomic theory into policy and research, and steered the fast expanding ‘applied’ economics in an econometric direction based on newly available national accounts data. The RF played a decisive role in selecting the economists retained for applied research when World War 2 ended, and with it the type of work funded. We argue that the RF’s preference for financing stand-alone institutes restrained the initial expansion of England’s applied economics research despite a head-start on national income accounting and business-focused research. Drawing on unpublished correspondence between John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) and senior RF officers, we show how the diffi...
Uploads
Papers by Ann Vogel