Financialization research has spread across disciplines, regions, and mainstream journals.

Evidence

Although the authors themselves were somewhat cautious in their assessments of these changes, their work has been followed and elaborated upon in numerous ways since then. As the financialization thesis became further developed, scholars have begun to explore this phenomenon more broadly. First, the disciplinary scope of financialization studies has widened to include multiple social science disciplines, such as geography and development studies. Furthermore, the geographical focus on the USA and Europe has been supplemented with work on other regions in the developed and developing world (Gabor, 2010; Rethel, 2010; Ashman et al., 2011). Finally, although still concentrated in political economy journals like Review of International Political Economy and Competition & Change, scholarly work on financialization has increasingly appeared in mainstream publications in the social sciences (cf. Tomaskovic-Devey and Lin, 2011). These are strong signs that financialization studies are moving beyond the ‘periphery’ of the social sciences (Engelen, 2008, p. 113). — Natascha van der Zwan, Making Sense of Financialization, 10

Categorization

• ADDENDUM: Maps the growth of financialization studies as a field — relevant context for understanding how financing structures (central to the financialization thesis) permeate contemporary capitalism.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Natascha van der Zwan, Making Sense of Financialization, 10
• XREF: connects to: Financialization has competing explanations from three distinct scholarly disciplines. — Gerald F. Davis & Suntae Kim, Financialization of the Economy, 30; Financialization scholarship spans three approaches with distinct analytic foci. — Natascha van der Zwan, Making Sense of Financialization, 2

Related

• Financialization has competing explanations from three distinct scholarly disciplines. (similarity 0.88)
• Financialization scholarship spans three approaches with distinct analytic foci. (similarity 0.86)
• Financialization lacks rigorous empirical evidence defining its timing and magnitude (similarity 0.82)
• Financialization does not yield uniform convergence across national contexts. (similarity 0.82)
• Scholars asserted financialization’s existence without providing direct evidence (similarity 0.81)
• Financialization shifts capital intermediation from institutions to markets. (similarity 0.81)
• Financialization ultimately represents markets displacing social institutions as society’s organizing principle. (similarity 0.81)
• Nonfinance-firm financialization has received little research attention. (similarity 0.80)
• Whether financialization causes neoliberalism or the reverse remains disputed. (similarity 0.80)
• The US economy became increasingly financialized in the post-1970s period. (similarity 0.80)
• Financialization is a pattern of accumulation dominated by financial channels over trade and production (similarity 0.80)
• Financialization means finance’s motifs spreading into spheres far from finance proper (similarity 0.79)
• The financialization literature lacks a unified definition across four competing usages (similarity 0.79)
• Financialization scholarship assumes it is a universal, uniform process (similarity 0.79)
• Financialization marks a decisive shift from production-based to finance-driven accumulation. (similarity 0.79)