Business school institutional structure determines whether theoretical finance thrives

Evidence

Chance no doubt played a role, but Whitley (1986a,b) is surely right to see the academicization of American business schools as having facilitated the development of modern financial economics in the United States. As he points out, the slow development in the U.K. of business schools comparable to those in the United States, and the fact that in the U.K. finance was often taught in departments of accounting and finance that were dominated by accountants, created an institutional context that was much less supportive of theoretical, mathematical approaches to the subject. — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, 1095

Categorization

• XREF: Parallels to STS arguments about how institutional contexts shape which scientific approaches flourish. — connects to: National economies differ because institution matrices enable different firm types to thrive — Gerald F. Davis & Suntae Kim, Financialization of the Economy, 124; The new finance theory displaced managerial finance from business school curricula — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 313; Modern financial economics took root in business schools rather than economics departments — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 320 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Academic institutionalization can eliminate productive theoretical tension #corroborates (0.82)
• Tenure-track conformity to power precedes and explains academic quietism #expands (0.75) — Hamid Dabashi, Brown Skin, White Masks, 325
• Finance theorists moved fluidly between academia and market practice #complicates (0.72) — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, 1096