This essay examines the contemporary discourse on inflation through the lens of Wittgenstein’s late work on language games. Using his concept of hinge propositions – beliefs upon which language games depend – I offer a novel perspective on the public good that is price stability. In particular, I first consider the inflation hypothesis as a derivative of the commodity theory of money and therefore inherently linked to a purely quantitative regime of monetary management. I then argue that, based on the hinge proposition that money is a creature of law, money’s value might instead be grasped and engaged on the basis of its political and qualitative dimensions.

An idée fixe of Great Moderation economic policy was that central banks are only effective macroeconomic managers when they are segregated from electoral politics. That idea made a swift transition from radical heterodoxy to commonsensical orthodoxy during the 1980s and proved remarkably resistant to reality during the 2008 financial crisis. After almost twenty years of ‘unconventional’ monetary policy, scholars, policymakers, and politicians are justifiably searching for more credible ways to conceptualise and use the nation-state’s monetary authority. Two recent books provide vital energy for that intellectual exercise. Éric Monnet’s Balance of Power is a bold re-conceptualisation of monetary authority as a welfare-state support in liberal democracies. In addition to dissipating the illusion that central banks are simply interest-rate-setting inflation-fighters, Monnet presents a systematic argument for integrating them into a web of deliberative institutions (including public development banks and economically empowered parliaments) to bolster the legitimacy and effectiveness of monetary policy. Relatedly, Manuella Moschella’s Unexpected Revolutionaries attacks the idea that central bankers are responsive only to technocratic doctrine and private-market behaviour, showing how monetary authorities sculpt policies to bolster their reputation with political actors. Paying close reference to private-market liquidity guarantees and quantitative easing, Moschella maps the fortunes of unconventional policy in alignment with political support for financial-market backstops and exceptional economic stimulus. Both books provoke readers to jettison the anodyne generalities of central banks’ own glossy pamphlets and think afresh about the possibilities of economic policy’s new normality.

This essay argues for an integrative move in the investigation of the politics of ‘green’ finance. We suggest that approaching the politics of ‘green’ finance in the form of knowledge contestations can bring out complementarities and bridge divides between different levels of analysis and theoretical traditions. Our focus is motivated by the pivotal role of knowledge and ignorance in the organisation and governance of financial markets identified in economic sociology, political economy, and neighbouring disciplines. Drawing on this scholarship, we consider knowledge both a forum for and a means of politics. We then illustrate how this conceptualisation provides insights into the politics of ‘green’ finance on different levels of analysis and following different theoretical traditions: in the context of tracing elites in their dissemination of specific ideas shaping governance regimes; when following market devices which produce partial calculative representations of the world; in problematising how financial organisations both produce and accept certain types of knowledge to further their interests; and when examining the role of ideology and imaginative capture in stabilising financial capitalism during climate crisis. We conclude by identifying the connective tissue between these different analytical and theoretical approaches made visible by the integrative concept of politics as knowledge contestations.

The promise or intent of change is a fundamental feature of ‘green’ finance. Despite many observable and notable changes in financial discourse, disclosure practices, products, and regulatory reforms, many green finance researchers are also painfully aware of the various ways in which green finance falls short of its promise. Being confronted with stasis creates feelings of frustration and gives rise to fundamental questions about the role of researchers in conducting research in this area and their normative stances towards their research objects. To generate movement away from stasis, this article calls for a more explicit consideration of researchers’ agency, emotions, and normativities in green finance research. Drawing on the metaphor of paths and path-making – a generative tool for thinking across various disciplines – it outlines different types of agency that can help researchers in orienting themselves along different pathways of change. In reflecting on these agencies, the article advocates for fostering explicit discussions on the diverse normative stances present in green finance research. This approach aims to inspire opportunities for collective authorship on specific and pressing questions, ultimately enhancing the collective agency of socio-economic scholarship in the field of green finance.