Financial ideas, political constraints : the IPE of sovereign wealth funds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rather than ponder sovereign wealth funds' (SWFs ') significance for global capital \nmarkets, this thesis takes a step back and asks the following: why do SWFs exist in \nsuch numbers across the global political economy? The SWF literature, dominated by \nfmancial economists and neoliberal commentators, has yet to adequately address this \npuzzle. This is significant given the funds embed systematically significant amounts \nof national wealth throughout speculative capital markets, thereby increasing their \nstate's vulnerability to recurrent asset bubbles and crises. The thesis consequently \nexamines the interest-based politics behind SWFs' domestic origins. It begins its \nanalysis with the argument that SWFs are first and foremost domestic strategies of \ngovernance created to achieve specific short and medium term goals of the \nadministrative state. This is despite their international and long-term investment \norientations. In short, the funds serve to immediately stabilize state actors' \ngovernance function by reconceptualising problems of uncertainty in the quantitative \nand manageable terms of fmancial risk. This account of SWFs' origins thus contests \nthat currently dominating mainstream commentary, which portrays the funds as \nevolutionary features of modem fmance capitalism. The domestic political interests \nSWFs were initially created to serve consequently remain critically unexamined. \nDrawing from the constructivist institutionalism literature, the thesis also seeks to \ndemonstrate that SWFs are the institutional embodiment of a specific array of \nprescriptive fmancial ideas. It will be shown this framework offmancial 'knowledge' \nproblematically constrains political actors to defer their interests to the demands of \nthe speculative fmancial realm. In the face of recurrent crises, such constraint \nhighlights how SWFs' immediate impact on domestic socioeconomic spheres \noutweighs their imagined fmancial benefits. The funds' rapid expansion since 2000 \ntherefore poses significant implications for the nature and exercise of sovereign \nauthority in SWF-states. These theoretical arguments are developed in Part I of the \nthesis, and then tested against three case studies in Part II: Norway's Government \nPension Fund-Global; Alberta's Heritage Savings Trust Fund; and Ireland's National \nPension Reserve Fund. \n
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".