Financial discourses do not dominate ordinary people’s saving behavior.

Evidence

Despite everyday scholars’ commitment to a non-elitist approach to financialization, the role of political agency remains murky. Throughout this body of work, we read how ordinary people have become vulnerable to financial risk and do not possess the financial literacy to make informed decisions about financial planning. This skepticismtowardsthenon-eliteactor isexpressed, forinstance,intheconclusionthatthemiddleclasses’generallyhaveamisplacedconfidenceintheirowncapacity to make financial judgements’ (Erturk et al., 2007b, p. 555). Yet, even though financialization has increased exposure to risk, it hardly follows that ordinary people are docile followers of financial markets. In particular, scholars of the everydaycannotexplainwhysomanypeoplehaveoptedoutofindividualizedretirement schemes or have shown a general preference for risk-averse investment. This suggests that the financial discourses may not be as powerful as they are prevalent. — Natascha van der Zwan, Making Sense of Financialization, 76

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Natascha van der Zwan, Making Sense of Financialization, 76
• XREF: connects to: Financialized risk-taking is concentrated in the upper middle class, not spread across all earners — Neil Fligstein & Adam Goldstein, The Emergence of a Finance Culture in…, 143

Related

• Financialized risk-taking is concentrated in the upper middle class, not spread across all earners (similarity 0.84)
• The state actively drives financialization through policy, while individuals internalize its risk discourses. (similarity 0.82)
• Financialization redraws who supplies life’s basic needs, shifting welfare from state to markets (similarity 0.79)
• Financialization operates as decentralized power through everyday financial practices (similarity 0.79)
• Finance becomes the model for society’s responses to uncertainty. (similarity 0.78)