Affiliation:
1. School of Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge Massachusetts USA
2. Social Innovation and Change Initiative, Harvard Kennedy School Harvard University Cambridge Massachusetts USA
3. Department of Anthropology Brandeis University Waltham Massachusetts USA
Abstract
AbstractMetrics and other forms of quantification as technologies for rendering knowledge as measurable, usually quantitative “data,” in simplified, legible, and portable ways, have become increasingly central within discussions of the economy, and these quantitative tools have equally become the subject of anthropological discussion and critique. The motivations behind and effects of numbers in the field of “responsible finance,” already a space where the “ethical claims” of the economy are made explicit, have themselves become the center of ethical discussion, both within the field of responsible finance and among those anthropologists studying that field. The authors of this article (one an academic, one a practitioner in impact investing, and one a hybrid academic‐practitioner in climate finance) respond to the argument that we suggest is implicitly or explicitly present in most of the work around quantification and metrics, namely, that quantification acts as a kind of “antipolitics machine,” rendering political problems as technical ones and simplifying complex realities.
Subject
Anthropology,Economics and Econometrics
Reference74 articles.
1. Metrics
2. Erlandsson and GFF Launch the Anthropocene FI Institute;Albuquerque Filipe;Nordsip,2020
3. Beyond Numbers: How Investment Managers Accommodate Societal Issues in Financial Decisions
4. Transparency Short-Circuited: Laughter and Numbers in Costa Rican Water Politics
5. Bank of International Settlements.2021. “The Green Swan Conference—Coordinating Finance on Climate.”https://www.bis.org/events/green_swan_2021/overview.htm.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献