The transformation of business finance into financial economics: The roles of academic expansion and changes in U.S. capital markets

doi:10.1016/0361-3682(86)90029-2

Accounting, Organizations and Society

Volume 11, Issue 2, 1986, Pages 171-192

https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(86)90029-2 Get rights and content

Abstract

Financial economics combines a high degree of theoretical abstraction and formality with considerable empirical uncertainty and strong connections to financial institutions and employers. This unusual combination is the product of academic expansion in the leading U.S. post graduate business schools and their attempt to acquire intellectual legitimacy by encouraging scientific research, on the one hand, and of changes in the organization of U.S. financial markets, especially of investment analysis and management, on the other hand. This paper discusses the dominant characteristics of financial economics as an intellectual field and how these contextual factors shaped its emergence.

References (122)

I. Friend
Recent Developments in Finance
Journal of Banking and Finance
(1977)
R. Ackoff
The Future of Operational Research is Past
Journal of Operational Research Society
(1979)
P.A. Adler et al.
The Market as Collective Behaviour
W.J. Barber
The United States: Economists in a Pluralistic Polity
History of Political Economy
(1981)
R.M. Bayliss
The Greening of the U.S. Investment Business
Financial Analysts Journal
(1977)
F. Black
The Trouble with Econometric Models
Financial Analysts Journal
(March–April 1982)
M. Blaug
The Methodology of Economics
(1980)
B.J. Bledstein
The Culture of Professionalism: the middle class and higher education in America
(1978)
F.E. Block
Elements of Portfolio Construction
Financial Analysts Journal
(1969)
P.I. Blumberg
The Megacorporation in American Society
(1975)

S. Bonder

Changing the Future of Operations Research

Operations Research

(1979)

A.E. Booth et al.

The Market for Economists in Britain, 1945–75: a preliminary survey

Economic Journal

(1978)

R. Brealey et al.

Principles of Corporate Finance

(1981)

M. Brenner

The Sensitivity of the Efficient Market Hypothesis to Alternative Specifications of the Market Model

Journal of Finance

(1979)

O.W. Broome

The C.F.A. Program's Body of Knowledge

Financial Analysts Journal

(1980)

S. Calderwood

The Truth about Index Funds

Financial Analysts Journal

(1977)

E.R. Canterbery et al.

What do we mean by asking whether economics is a science?

P. Checkland

O.R. and the Systems Movement: mappings and conflicts

Journal of the Operational Research Society

(1983)

C. Christenson

The Methodology of Positive Accounting

Accounting Review

(1983)

C.W. Churchman

Operations Research as a Profession

Management Science

(1970)

A.W. Clausen

The Changing Character of Financial Markets in the Post-War Period

J. Coakley et al.

The City of Capital

(1983)

A. Coddington

Positive Economics

Canadian Journal of Economics

(1972)

R. Collins

The Credential Society

(1979)

S. Cottle

The Future of Pension Fund Management

Financial Analysts Journal

(1977)

E.P. Cox et al.

Relational Characteristics of the Business Literature

Journal of Business

(1976)

R.I. Cummin

Markowitz's Complaint

Financial Analysts Journal

(1971)

M.R. Dando et al.

A Kuhnian Crisis in Management Science?

Journal of the Operational Research Society

(1981)

P. Deane

The Scope and Method of Economic Science

Econimic Journal

(1983)

D. Durand

The State of the Finance Field: further comment

Journal of Finance

(1968)

T.R. Dyckman et al.

Two Decades of the Journal of Accounting Research

Journal of Accounting Research

(1984)

R.V. Eagly

Contemporary Profile of Conventional Economists

History of Political Economy

(1974)

L.H. Ederington

Aspects of the Production of Significant Financial Research

Journal of Finance

(1979)

S. Eichner

Why Economics is not yet a Science

C.D. Ellis

Pension Funds Need Management Management

Financial Analysts Journal

(1979)

E.F. Fama

Efficient Capital Markets: a review of theory and empirical work

Journal of Finance

(1970)

D.E. Farrar et al.

Institutional Investors and Concentration of Financial Power: Berle and Means Revisited

Journal of Finance

(1981)

M.C. Findlay et al.

A Positivist Evaluation of the New Finance

Financial Management

(1980)

M.C. Findlay et al.

A Post Keynesian View of Modern Financial Economics

Journal of Business Finance and Accounting

(1985)

A.L. Fisher

What happens to capitalism when money managers stop acting like capitalists?

Financial Analysts Journal

(1977)

W.L. Fouse et al.

Is Beta Phlogiston?

Financial Analysts Journal

(1974)

B.M. Friedman

Postwar Changes in the American Financial Markets

I. Friend

Mythodology in Finance

Journal of Finance

(1973)

I. Friend et al.

New Evidence on the Capital Asset Pricing Model

Journal of Finance

(1978)

W.R. Good et al.

An Investors' Guide to the Index Fund Controversy

Financial Analysts Journal

(1976)

R.A. Gordon et al.

Higher Education for Business

(1959)

C.W.J. Granger

What the Random Walk Model does NOT say

Financial Analysts Journal

(1970)

W.S. Gray

The Major Shortfall of ERISA

Financial Analysts Journal

(1977)

J.A. Griswold

Finance

H.G. Grubel

The Peter Principle and the Efficient Market Hypothesis

Financial Analysts Journal

(1979)

Cited by (184)

The co-performation of financial economics in accounting standard-setting: A study of the translation of the expected credit loss model in IFRS 9
2020, Accounting, Organizations and Society
This paper adds to the literature on the role of financial economics in accounting standard-setting by analyzing the co-performation of an economic theory – the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) – in the construction of a new approach to accounting for credit losses in financial reporting. Inspired by actor-network theory and its notions of performativity and translation, the paper draws on interview data and documents to reconstruct the process by which the devalued “incurred loss” impairment model was replaced with a more forward-looking “expected loss” approach under IFRS in response to the 2008 financial crisis. These actions comprised of a series of experiments and negotiations, including an unsuccessful effort to establish an “ideal”-type model and the failure of a joint initiative between the IASB and the FASB. Alongside extensive considerations over how to make the approach operational, the influence of the EMH regarding the relationship between loan pricing and initial expectations of credit losses is elucidated. We show how a standard-setting objective grounded in financial economics is translated through a process of approximation as it forges linkages with other matters of concern. This process sheds light on the transformations involved in finding tolerable solutions when utilizing financial economics in the setting of accounting standards.
Accounting as a dichotomised discipline: An analysis of the source materials used in the construction of accounting articles
2020, Critical Perspectives on Accounting
Academic research in accounting has often been characterised as exhibiting a dichotomy between the positivist approach and the critical, interpretive and interdisciplinary (CII) approaches. Our paper examines the extent of this dichotomy by presenting empirical evidence on the different source materials which the two communities use to construct their research papers. Across all articles published in six leading journals between 2002 and 2013, we find that positivist papers tend to be constructed from a narrower set of references drawn mostly from elite business journals while CII papers draw from a much more diverse range of sources, including non-elite journals, non-business journals and books. There is also evidence of the growing impact of journal ranking lists, with notable upward (downward) trends in the usage of high-ranked (unranked) reference sources. We suggest a link here with recent research on signalling within the publication process.
Inequality, Inc.
2019, Critical Perspectives on Accounting
Citation Excerpt :
If corporations existed as market agents in an essentially competitive market, it could then be argued that the market itself could provide the yardstick and control necessary for the provision of optimal social utility, that corporate accountability and monitoring of governance could be left wholesale to market parties and that the institutional controls that had been a part of the social contract could be understood as hampering market forces in the provision of optimal social utility (Aglietta & Rebérioux, 2005; Davies, 2010; Friedman, 1970; Van Horn, 2009, 2011; Weinstein, 2012). These reconceptualizations of the modern corporation as an innocuous market agent, of corporate architecture as a reduced dyadic relation, and of the provision of social and economic utility through enhancing the market value of public corporations were relatively quickly adopted and institutionalized in corporate governance codes, accounting rules, financial regulations, and business and law school curricula (Ghoshal, 2005; Horn, 2012; Khurana, 2007; Whitley, 1986). As these notions became reflected in corporate law, finance, and accounting theory, shareholders became increasingly emboldened to use this new setup to coerce top-managers to push through strategies intended to impress or placate financial markets.
To engage with inequality, I explore how corporate governance theory is based on inherently contingent ideas of the legal and organizational structuring of the modern public corporation in a corporate ‘architecture’, and how these contingent ideas affect the distribution of privileges, protections and proceeds to different types of actors. I argue that the currently dominant corporate governance theory ignores a specific corporate architecture that provided internal and external legitimacy to the modern public corporation by embedding a set of trade-offs between constituent groups and cementing those trade-offs into a broader institutional setting. Ignoring this architecture leads to the redirection of the privileges and protections embodied in the modern corporation to the exclusive benefit of an implicit coalition of market value-oriented shareholders and managers, while the risks to all other actors, interests and timeframes are relegated to the status of ‘externalities’. I explore how a focus on contingent conceptions of the modern corporation and of corporate governance provides an organizational-level explanation for growing inequality with which existing sectoral and state-centric approaches and means for engagement can be complemented.
Why does research in finance have so little impact?
2019, Critical Perspectives on Accounting
Citation Excerpt :
Focusing on the ‘top’ journal by impact factor alone (the Journal of Finance, JF), the number of studies over each decade was 288, 372, 358 and 498 in the 1970s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s respectively. Already thirty years ago, Whitley (1986, p. 173) attributed the growth in the number of articles published in the Journal of Finance in particular (and corresponding increases in rejection rates) to the formalisation of the ‘publish or perish’ mentality, and this trend seems to have intensified over the last three decades as our data suggest. In addition, and as Panel B of Table 2 shows, the average article length across all journals (of the Journal of Finance, JF) also rose from 14.47 (12.88) pages in the 1970s to 30.54 (37.04) pages after 2010.
The quantity of finance research has grown enormously over the past two decades, yet questions remain over its breadth and ability to benefit the economy and society beyond academia. Using multisource data, we argue that individual and institutional incentives have fostered insularity and a consequent homogeneity in the discipline. We examine the characteristics of research that is published and cited in the leading field journals in finance, arguing that the work has become abstract and unrelated to real world issues. The work published in the ‘top’ journals makes increasing use of US data, even where the researchers are drawn from different countries. Using information from impact assessment, publication patterns, and grant capture, we illustrate that this narrow agenda lacks relevance to the financial services sector, the economy or wider society compared to other areas of business and management research. In particular, we highlight the relative absence of research on ethics in academic finance and discuss the likely consequences for the discipline including its relevance to society.
Publication patterns and coauthorship in the Journal of Corporate Finance
2018, Journal of Corporate Finance
In this article, we explore publication patterns in the Journal of Corporate Finance and discuss scientometric results from 1994 to 2017. We document evidence on the number and size of published papers, collaborative research in terms of coauthorship, editorial board characteristics, and citations as approximations of scientific impact. We identify the most prolific individuals and institutions and discuss how published research has exhibited an increasing number of authors per paper (2.38 on average), how the percentage of USA-based affiliations is gradually decreasing, and how 10.32% of published papers have been written by a member of the editorial board. In an attempt to map the social structure of collaboration in the Journal of Corporate Finance, we studied the social network of coauthors and found that the most prolific authors and institutions are also among the most central ones. We also discovered that the network of coauthorship spreads across 470 connected groups of nodes, the largest of which spans 24.63% of the network.
Carriers of ideas in accounting standard-setting and financialization: The role of epistemic communities
2018, Accounting, Organizations and Society
We investigate one episode of the “financialization” of accounting: the debate over the “correct” method to discount defined benefit (DB) pension plan liabilities for US public sector financial reporting. We outline this issue from the pre-agenda, agenda-setting and alternatives selection phases of the standard setting process, through to the policy decision made by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) in 2012. We find that one group of 15 individuals, which we propose acted as an epistemic community (EC) that was focused on financial economic theory, was disproportionally influential in all phases of the standard setting process, despite its small size. Ideas do not spontaneously travel from one jurisdiction (e.g., financial economics) to another (e.g., accounting) without agency. We thus add a focus on the carriers of ideas to the literature on accounting standard setting, which has so far predominantly examined this process from the standpoint of interests and institutions. We argue that framing theory helps to both empirically identify the hierarchies of the EC, but further helps to make visible the values and assumptions made by agents of financialization who push towards the adoption of financial computation techniques presented as axiologically neutral.

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

The transformation of business finance into financial economics: The roles of academic expansion and changes in U.S. capital markets

Abstract

Journal of Banking and Finance

The Future of Operational Research is Past

Journal of Operational Research Society

The Market as Collective Behaviour

The United States: Economists in a Pluralistic Polity

History of Political Economy

The Greening of the U.S. Investment Business

Financial Analysts Journal

The Trouble with Econometric Models

Financial Analysts Journal

The Methodology of Economics

The Culture of Professionalism: the middle class and higher education in America

Elements of Portfolio Construction

Financial Analysts Journal

The Megacorporation in American Society

Changing the Future of Operations Research

Operations Research

The Market for Economists in Britain, 1945–75: a preliminary survey

Economic Journal

Principles of Corporate Finance

The Sensitivity of the Efficient Market Hypothesis to Alternative Specifications of the Market Model

Journal of Finance

The C.F.A. Program's Body of Knowledge

Financial Analysts Journal

The Truth about Index Funds

Financial Analysts Journal

What do we mean by asking whether economics is a science?

O.R. and the Systems Movement: mappings and conflicts

Journal of the Operational Research Society

The Methodology of Positive Accounting

Accounting Review

Operations Research as a Profession

Management Science

The Changing Character of Financial Markets in the Post-War Period

The City of Capital

Positive Economics

Canadian Journal of Economics

The Credential Society

The Future of Pension Fund Management

Financial Analysts Journal

Relational Characteristics of the Business Literature

Journal of Business

Markowitz's Complaint

Financial Analysts Journal

A Kuhnian Crisis in Management Science?

Journal of the Operational Research Society

The Scope and Method of Economic Science

Econimic Journal

The State of the Finance Field: further comment

Journal of Finance

Two Decades of the Journal of Accounting Research

Journal of Accounting Research

Contemporary Profile of Conventional Economists

History of Political Economy

Aspects of the Production of Significant Financial Research

Journal of Finance

Why Economics is not yet a Science

Pension Funds Need Management Management

Financial Analysts Journal

Efficient Capital Markets: a review of theory and empirical work

Journal of Finance

Institutional Investors and Concentration of Financial Power: Berle and Means Revisited

Journal of Finance

A Positivist Evaluation of the New Finance

Financial Management

A Post Keynesian View of Modern Financial Economics

Journal of Business Finance and Accounting

What happens to capitalism when money managers stop acting like capitalists?

Financial Analysts Journal

Is Beta Phlogiston?

Financial Analysts Journal

Postwar Changes in the American Financial Markets

Mythodology in Finance

Journal of Finance

New Evidence on the Capital Asset Pricing Model

Journal of Finance

An Investors' Guide to the Index Fund Controversy

Financial Analysts Journal