Political Economy of Accounting

This study explores how the conflicts of interest involving actors in the process and decision-making of local government budget planning that impacts the implementation of the SDGs from the perspective of the Political Economy of Accounting. The study uses a qualitative methodology grounded in critical analysis. It gathered information through in-depth interviews and document analysis. The interviews followed a semi-structured format. Data analysis involved collecting information from fieldwork and existing literature, interpreting primary and secondary data, and drawing conclusions. The findings suggest that actors involved in budget planning often face conflicts of interest. Resource allocation and patron-client relationships also influence budgetary decisions. Addressing these conflicts requires collective decision-making to achieve policy and economic goals. The implications of this research show that PEA theory can be used as an analytical tool that can describe the discourse on the relationship of an international idea that is localised into a local government budget, which is full of elements of political economy. The implications of this research for management in local government are as input and critical considerations that can be used as considerations in making further budget policies.

Higher penalties may apply, and higher damages may be awarded, for offences and infringements involving the conversion of material into digital or electronic form. Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not necessarily Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the University of Wollongong. represent the views of the University of Wollongong.

This chapter describes and problematizes the specific turn to assetization that patents have taken, more specifically, the transfiguration of patents into speculative financial assets. Whereas intellectual property rights are commonly presumed to be key assets in the so-called knowledge economy, the mechanisms by which they are transformed and performed as assets are less examined. This chapter takes a closer look into the ways in which patents are turned into assets by practices and specific knowledge techniques both in and outside of law. With an emphasis on the processes of legal and financial abstractions, it identifies and discusses the modes and practices in which patents act and are transacted as assets that go beyond practices of commodification and monopoly rent-seeking: in patent portfolios, as real options and as instruments of financial hedging. Whereas law has enabled the creation of a market in patents as assets, the argument is that it has now become a financialized market object itself.

Increasingly, a range of 'things' (e.g. infrastructure, data, knowledge, bodies, etc.) are configured and/or reconfigured as assets, or capitalized property. Accumulation strategies have changed as a result of this assetization process, which characterizes a particular form of technoscientific capitalism. Rather than entrepreneurial strategies based on commodity production, technoscientific capitalism is increasingly underpinned by rentiership, or the appropriation of value through ownership rights (e.g. intellectual property), monopoly conditions, and regulatory or market devices and practices (e.g. investment dispute courts, exclusivity agreements, etc.). While rentiership and rent-seeking are often presented as negative phenomena (e.g. distorting markets, unearned income) in both neoclassical and Marxist literatures – and much in-between – it is my intention in this paper to unpack rentiership as an increasingly constitutive political-economic process underpinning technoscientific capitalism. Rather than being framed as a problematic 'side-effect' of capitalism, I argue that rentiership can help us to understand how different forms of value extraction are constituted by and come to constitute different forms of technoscience. This has significant analytical, political, and normative implications for understanding the relationship between science, innovation, and business (e.g. how do rentier rationales configure research agendas, how does innovation enable rentiership, what are the consequences for social equity, etc.).

As I read Andy Pike’s book, I found myself nodding along to almost everything he was writing, almost everything…. The only issue that kept me from fully agreeing with his arguments was that I saw it all through a very different conceptual lens. To be clear, I do not think that his theoretical treatment of the topic at hand – brands and branding – is weak or inadequate or anything along those lines; it is simpler than that. Conceptually, the book is built around an analysis of what Pike calls ‘goods and services commodities’ – a phrase that he comes back to repeatedly throughout the book. In contrast, I think that the book is really all about assets and not commodities, conceptually speaking at least, and I think this makes a major difference to how we conceptualize what is going on. In order to illustrate this line of thinking, I start this review by outlining what Pike actually puts in his book; then, I present some comments that point towards what I am calling a theory of rentiership.

At a time when neoliberalism has become an accepted term in public debate to refer to the current state of modern societies and their political economies, Kean Birch critically analyses the conflicting theories that shape our understanding of ‘neoliberalism’.

With an ever-expanding variety of perspectives on the concept of neoliberalism, it is increasingly difficult to identify any commonalities. This book explores how different people understand neoliberalism, and the contradictions in thinking of neoliberalism as a market-based ethic, project, or order. Detailing the intellectual history of ‘neoliberal’ thought, the variety of critical approaches and the many analytical ambiguities, Kean Birch presents a new way to conceptualize contemporary political economy and offers potential avenues for future research through a judicious exploration of ‘neoliberal’ practices, processes, and institutions.

This work will be an essential resource for undergraduate and postgraduate students, scholars, and researchers to critically assess the concept of neoliberalism across many disciplines. The book will also serve as a general introduction to a wider audience interested in the term ‘neoliberalism’, its potential pitfalls, and its contested future.

Economic assumptions underpin an enormous range of expert judgements regarding technoscience and beyond. Such assumptions frequently remain implicit, meaning that they are unaccountable despite being powerful influences on an array of decisions, policies, media representations, public engagements, professional expertise, etc. Examples of these assumptions include the following: how livelihoods relate to rising GDP; how human behaviour relates to  competitive individualism; how government policies relate to notions of efficiency and cost-benefit analysis; how innovation relates to capital-intensive technology; how technology relates to social progress and societal benefits; how technoscientific development relates to financial returns; how successful product development relates to price, quality, public acceptance; etc. (Muniesa 2014; Birch 2016; Roy and King 2016). For all such issues, the underlying assumptions are normative and constitutive, even if claiming to be merely descriptive.

Current debates in science and technology studies emphasize that the bio-economy—or, the articulation of capitalism and biotechnology—is built on notions of commodity production, commodification, and materiality, emphasizing that it is possible to derive value from body parts, molecular and cellular tissues, biological processes, and so on. What is missing from these perspectives, however, is consideration of the political-economic actors, knowledges, and practices involved in the creation and management of value. As part of a rethinking of value in the bio-economy, this article analyzes three key political-economic processes: financialization, capitalization, and asseti-zation. In doing so, it argues that value is managed as part of a series of valuation practices, it is not inherent in biological materialities.

A number of people have claimed that the ongoing financial crisis has revealed the problems with neoliberal thought and neoliberal policies in the 'Atlantic Heartland'. However, if we look at the history of the 'Heartland' economies then it becomes evident that they were never neoliberal in the first place - that is, the economic policies and discourses in these countries did not follow neoliberal prescriptions. /We Have Never Been Neoliberal/ explores this divergence between neoliberal theory and 'neoliberal' practice by focusing on the underlying contradictions in monetarism, private monopolies, and financialization. The book finishes by proposing a 'manifesto for a doomed youth' in which it argues that younger generations should refuse to pay interest on anything in order to avoid the trap of debt-driven living.