Economic theory and actual market practice cannot be radically separated in derivatives

Evidence

Michel Gallon’s critic Daniel Miller argues that economic sociology and anthropology should “radically separate out the market as a ritual and ideological system constructed by economists and the actual practice of economies” (D. Miller 2002, p. 224). In the sections above, we have seen a range of performative effects of financial economics. They vary in importance and in the extent to which they approximate to strong, Barnesian performativity. Nevertheless, it is clear that in at least some contexts most obviously in the derivatives markets the radical separation called for by Miller is impossible. The economic theory of derivatives and the “actual practice” of derivatives markets are interwoven too intimately. — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, 1182

Categorization

  • XREF: Directly responds to Miller’s critique of Callon — the core sociology-of-finance debate over whether markets and their theories are separable; connects to Callon’s ‘performation’ concept. — connects to: Economic theory succeeded in derivatives markets partly by making markets conform to it — Donald MacKenzie & Yuval Millo, Constructing a Market, Performing Theory, 9; Economic theory, not trader demand, forged the proposal for the stock-options exchange — Donald MacKenzie & Yuval Millo, Constructing a Market, Performing Theory, 63; Financial economics actively alters markets rather than merely describing them — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 64 (+8 more)
  • DEFINE: Clarifies the scope of Barnesian performativity: its strong form is approximated most fully in derivatives markets.
  • DEEPTHINKING: This is the book’s central boundary-of-thesis statement — where performativity does and does not reach, against critics who would dismiss the whole program.

Broader Connections