Working with Financial data as a Critical Geographer

Abstract

In this article I discuss a methodological approach I refer to as “critical financial analysis,” which blends critical theory with public finance tools. As geographers and other scholars have documented, there have been profound shifts in urban governance over the last three decades (Harvey 1989; Brenner and Theodore 2005; Hackworth 2007; Whiteside 2018). The squeezing of public budgets and tax restrictions, compounded by the 2007–2009 recession, have pushed municipal governments to look for cost-saving measures, seek out creative financial resources, and engage in entrepreneurial activities (Sbragia 1996; Weber 2010; Ashton, Doussard, and Weber 2014; Beswick and Penny 2018). While a robust and growing body of work on financialization exists, the state’s role in financialization (as an initiator and innovator, not just passive facilitator) is an emerging area with fewer studies to date (Aalbers 2017; Beswick and Penny 2018). Critical financial analysis is one approach that can be used to help fill gaps in the literature in light of these shifts. Critical financial analysis operates from the premise that financial data is a “field site” through which contested spaces, practices, and power relations can be explored.I illustrate my approach and its potential using a case study of the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA). The CHA example highlights the type of rich information that can be obtained by conducting detailed financial analysis. It demonstrates how empirical data combined with critical theory can be used to probe how public finance functions as a technology of power, and how particular finance logics can orient public institutions away from their social missions. Such work can help deepen our understanding of urban governance, and illuminate how macro processes intertwine with locally specific histories, political-economic conditions, and material realities.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 27 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.