Rethinking “Too Big To Fail”

Last month I published a paper rethinking the Too Big To Fail question from the point of view of anthropological theories of debt.  You might say that while modern financial economics focuses on credit, modern anthropology of exchange focuses on debt. The latter has developed very sophisticated theoretical and empirical insights about the politics and social practice of debts and indebtedness. As I argue in the chapter, unlike economists who regard “Too Big to Fail” scenarios as the exception to proper market relations, anthropologists’ empirical research shows that these are actually the norm. And not only are they the norm, but in fact social actors seek to become “Too Big to Fail.”  If you are so indebted to so many parties that you cannot be allowed to fail, anthropology tells us, you are actually the most powerful person around.  This view of the world probably better characterizes the realities of current finance, in which banks, like exchange actors anthropologists study, see becoming Too Big to Fail as something to be achieved, and in which the presence of such actors is also the norm, not the exception.

In the paper, I also show how anthropological theories of relational personhood and exchange relationships actually illuminate a number of aspects of the legal nature of corporate personhood and help us gain some critical perspective on the relationship between corporations and nation-states.

It is a new set of ideas for me and so I would really welcome feedback!