Advertisement

Dialectical Anthropology

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 295–315 | Cite as

Contesting household debt in Croatia: the double movement of financialization and the fetishism of money in Eastern European peripheries

  • Marek MikušEmail author
Article

Abstract

Croatia has experienced a marked boom in household debt in the 2000s. Much of this lending took high-risk and predatory forms that transferred significant risks to debtors, which in turn became the target of contestation by debt activists. This paper uses the Polanyian idea of “double movement” to show how the Croatian debt contestations responded to the distinctively peripheral form of financialization in Eastern Europe, characterized by unequal geoeconomic relationships and an intensified expropriation of debtors. This framework further highlights the importance of money in contemporary credit/debt relationships and their contestation, which has so far received insufficient attention in relevant anthropological scholarship. Instead of the currently fashionable credit theories of money, the paper uses the Marxian concept of the fetishism of money to unpack the roles of money in these processes. The analysis of discourses and practices of two groups of debtors and activists reveals how they used nationalist ideological frameworks and institutional channels such as litigation, again largely ignored by existing anthropological literature, to challenge the particular inequalities of peripheral financialization and the expropriation of debtors through the lenders’ predatory manipulations of the money fetish.

Keywords

Contestation Croatia Eastern Europe Household debt Money Financialization 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I undertook the research for and writing of early versions of this paper as a Research Fellow and a member of the “Financialisation” Research Group at the Max Planck Institute of Social Anthropology. I made later revisions of the piece as a Research Fellow in the project “Western Banks in Eastern Europe: New Geographies of Financialisation” (GEOFIN), which has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 program (grant agreement no. 683197). The early versions were presented in October 2017 in a weekly seminar of the Department “Resilience and Transformation in Eurasia” of the Max Planck Institute and at the EASA Anthropology of Economy Network workshop on “Deservingness—power, morality and inequality in contemporary Europe and beyond” in Vienna. I thank all who read the drafts and offered comments on those and other occasions, including Tristam Barrett, Charlotte Bruckermann, Christoph Brumann, Natalia Buier, Kirsten Endres, Chris Hann, Don Kalb, Dimitra Kofti, Patrícia Matos, Petra Rodik, Andreas Streinzer, Jelena Tošić, Theodora Vetta, and Hadas Weiss. I also thank all my research participants in Croatia, who indebted me by sharing so much about debts of their own and others.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Adorjan, Istvan. 2014. The fetish of finance: metatheoretical reflections on understandings of the 2008 crisis. Critical Historical Studies 1 (2): 285–313.Google Scholar
  2. Allon, Fiona. 2015. Money, debt, and the business of “free stuff”. South Atlantic Quarterly 114 (2): 283–305.Google Scholar
  3. Appel, Hannah. 2014. Occupy Wall Street and the economic imagination. Cultural Anthropology 29 (4): 602–625.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, Joachim, Johannes Jäger, Bernhard Leubolt, and Rudy Weissenbacher. 2010. Peripheral financialization and the vulnerability to crisis: a regulationist perspective. Competition & Change 14 (3–4): 225–247.Google Scholar
  5. Benčić, Luka. 2015. Rab ovršeni otok. Jutarnji list (Magazin), 31 January, 30–31.Google Scholar
  6. Bloch, Maurice. 1986. The symbolism of money in Imerina. In Money and the morality of exchange, ed. Jonathan Parry and Maurice Bloch, 165–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Block, Fred, and Margaret R. Somers. 2014. The power of market fundamentalism: Karl Polanyi’s critique. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bohle, Dorothee. 2014. Post-socialist housing meets transnational finance: foreign banks, mortgage lending, and the privatization of welfare in Hungary and Estonia. Review of International Political Economy 21 (4): 913–948.Google Scholar
  9. Bohle, Dorothee. 2018. Mortgaging Europe’s periphery. Studies in Comparative International Development 53 (2): 196–217.Google Scholar
  10. Bryan, Dick, Randy Martin, and Mike Rafferty. 2009. Financialization and Marx: giving labor and capital a financial makeover. Review of Radical Political Economics 41 (4): 458–472.Google Scholar
  11. Burton, Dawn. 2017. Credit inclusion and the home credit market in post-communist member states of the European Union. Critical Social Policy 37 (3): 444–463.Google Scholar
  12. CCZ (Commercial Court in Zagreb). 2013. Presuda 26.P-1401/2012. Available online at: http://kreda.org/images/uploads/569/04072013_prvo_stupanjska_presuda_2013_2.pdf. Accessed 15 Oct 2018.
  13. Christophers, Brett. 2011. Follow the thing: money. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 29 (6): 1068–1084.Google Scholar
  14. CNB (Croatian National Bank). 2015. Financial stability no. 15. Available online at: http://www.hnb.hr/documents/20182/520957/e-fs-15-2015.pdf. Accessed 15 Oct 2018.
  15. Foster, Robert J. 1998. Your money, our money, the government’s money: finance and fetishism in Melanesia. In Border fetishisms: material objects in unstable spaces, ed. Patricia Spyer, 60–90. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Gabor, Daniela. 2010. (De)financialization and crisis in Eastern Europe. Competition & Change 14 (3–4): 248–270.Google Scholar
  17. Graber, Renate. 2016. Ein Bankmanager, dem “alles über den Kopf gewachsen ist”. Available online at: http://derstandard.at/2000037776207/Ein-Bankmanager-dem-alles-ueber-den-Kopf-gewachsen-ist. Accessed 15 Oct 2018.
  18. Graeber, David. 2011. Debt: the first 5,000 years. New York: Melville House.Google Scholar
  19. Graeber, David. 2012. On social currencies and human economies: some notes on the violence of equivalence. Social Anthropology 20 (4): 411–428.Google Scholar
  20. Graeber, David. 2013. The democracy project: a history, a crisis, a movement. New York: Spiegel & Grau.Google Scholar
  21. Guérin, Isabelle, Solène Morvant-Roux, and Magdalena Villarreal, eds. 2014. Microfinance, debt and over-indebtedness: juggling with money. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Guyer, Jane I. 2012. Soft currencies, cash economies, new monies: past and present. PNAS 109 (7): 2214–2221.Google Scholar
  23. Guyer, Jane I. 2017. Cash and livelihood in soft currency economies: challenges for research. In Beyond neoliberalism: Social analysis after 1989, ed. Marian Burchardt and Gal Kirn, 97–116. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Halawa, Mateusz. 2015. In new Warsaw: mortgage credit and the unfolding of space and time. Cultural Studies 29 (5–6): 707–732.Google Scholar
  25. Hornborg, Alf. 2001. Symbolic technologies: machines and the Marxian notion of fetishism. Anthropological Theory 1 (4): 473–496.Google Scholar
  26. James, Deborah. 2015. Money from nothing: indebtedness and aspiration in South Africa. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jessop, Bob. 2015. Hard cash, easy credit, fictitious capital: critical reflections on money as a fetishised social relation. Finance and Society 1 (1): 20–37.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, Juliet, and Andrew Barnes. 2015. Financial nationalism and its international enablers: the Hungarian experience. Review of International Political Economy 22 (3): 535–569.Google Scholar
  29. Lapavitsas, Costas. 2005. The social relations of money as universal equivalent: a response to Ingham. Economy and Society 34 (3): 389–403.Google Scholar
  30. Lapavitsas, Costas. 2013. Profiting without producing: how finance exploits us all. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  31. Malbaša, Ana. 2017. “Ljudi iz RBA zadruge prevarili su nas i blokirali iako smo im vratili kredit”. Nacional, 14 March, 28–31.Google Scholar
  32. Marx, Karl. 1996 [1867]. Capital. Volume 1. London: Lawrence & Wishart.Google Scholar
  33. Marx, Karl. 1998 [1894]. Capital. Volume 3. London: Lawrence & Wishart.Google Scholar
  34. Maurer, Bill. 2006. The anthropology of money. Annual Review of Anthropology 35: 15–36.Google Scholar
  35. Molnár, Virág. 2016. Civil society, radicalism and the rediscovery of mythic nationalism. Nations and Nationalism 22 (1): 165–185.Google Scholar
  36. Nelms, Taylor C., and Bill Maurer. 2014. Materiality, symbol, and complexity in the anthropology of money. In The psychological science of money, ed. Erik Bijleveld and Henk Aarts, 37–70. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Palomera, Jaime. 2014. Reciprocity, commodification, and poverty in the era of financialization. Current Anthropology 55 (Supplement 9): S105–S115.Google Scholar
  38. Peebles, Gustav. 2010. The anthropology of credit and debt. Annual Review of Anthropology 39: 225–240.Google Scholar
  39. Polanyi, Karl. 2001 [1944]. The great transformation: the political and economic origins of our time. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  40. Puhr, Claus, Markus S. Schwaiger, and Michael Sigmund. 2009. Direct cross-border lending by Austrian banks to Eastern Europe. In Finanzmarktstabilitätsbericht 17, 109–129. Vienna: Österreichische Nationalbank.Google Scholar
  41. Rodik, Petra. 2015. The impact of the Swiss franc loans crisis on Croatian households. In Social and psychological dimensions of personal debt and the debt industry, ed. Serdar M. Değirmencioğlu and Carl Walker, 61–83. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. Rodik, Petra, and Mislav Žitko. 2015. Financialization, household debt and new vulnerabilities in post-socialist societies. In Financialisation and financial crisis in South-Eastern European countries, ed. Dubravko Radošević and Vladimir Cvijanović, 49–70. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  43. Sabaté, Irene. 2016. The Spanish mortgage crisis and the re-emergence of moral economies in uncertain times. History and Anthropology 27 (1): 107–120.Google Scholar
  44. Saiag, Hadrien. 2014. Towards a neo-Polanyian approach to money: integrating the concept of debt. Economy and Society 43 (4): 559–581.Google Scholar
  45. Scheiring, Gábor. 2016. Sustaining democracy in the era of dependent financialization: Karl Polanyi’s perspectives on the politics of finance. Intersections: East European Journal of Society and Politics 2 (2): 84–103.Google Scholar
  46. Sittinger, Ernst. 2014. Kroatien-Kredite: Schon hunderte Häuser versteigert. Available online at: http://www.kleinezeitung.at/wirtschaft/4595746/Affaere-bei-Raiffeisen_KroatienKredite_Hunderte-Versteigerungen. Accessed 15 Oct 2018.
  47. Soederberg, Susanne. 2014. Debtfare states and the poverty industry: money, discipline and the surplus population. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Stout, Noelle. 2016. #INDEBTED: disciplining the moral valence of mortgage debt online. Cultural Anthropology 31 (1): 82–106.Google Scholar
  49. Suarez, Maka. 2017. Debt revolts: Ecuadorian foreclosed families at the PAH in Barcelona. Dialectical Anthropology 41 (3): 263–277.Google Scholar
  50. Taussig, Michael T. 1980. The devil and commodity fetishism in South America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  51. Van der Zwan, Natascha. 2014. Making sense of financialization. Socio-Economic Review 12 (1): 99–129.Google Scholar
  52. Walker, Joshua T. 2017. Torn dollars and war-wounded francs: money fetishism in the Democratic Republic of Congo. American Ethnologist 44 (2): 288–299.Google Scholar
  53. Willis, Lauren E. 2006. Decisionmaking and the limits of disclosure: the problem of predatory lending: price. Maryland Law Review 65 (3): 707–840.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Fellow, Department of GeographyTrinity College DublinDublin 2Ireland
  2. 2.Associate, Department “Resilience and Transformation in Eurasia”Max Planck Institute for Social AnthropologyHalle (Saale)Germany

Personalised recommendations