In response to Christophers’ timely critique of the concept of financialization, and its usage, I reflect on the productive possibilities inherent in research that actively engages with the notion of ‘financialization (un)limited’. Drawing on research into property investment and development, I reflect on the value of studies that take cognizance of the evolving and protean nature of financialization as a process and, in addition, take seriously the notion of limits and spatial contexts.
ChristophersB (2015) The limits to financialization. Dialogues in Human Geography5(2): 183–200.
2.
DavidLHalbertL (2014) Finance capital, actor-network theory and the struggle over calculative agencies in the business property markets of Mexico city metropolitan region. Regional Studies48(3): 516–529.
3.
Gibson-GrahamJ-K (2008) Diverse economies: performative practices for ‘other worlds’. Progress in Human Geography32(5): 613–632.
4.
GothamK (2009) Creating liquidity out of spatial fixity: the secondary circuit of capital and the subprime mortgage crisis. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research33(2): 355–371.
5.
HarveyD (1982) The Limits to Capital. Oxford: Blackwell.
6.
HarveyD (2010) The Enigma of Capital. London: Profile Books.
7.
MurphyL (1996) Whose interest rates? Issues in the development of mortgage-backed securitisation. Housing Studies11(4): 581–589.
8.
MurphyL (2011) The global financial crisis and the Australian and New Zealand housing markets. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment26(3): 335–351.
9.
PeckJTheodoreNBrennerN (2010) Postneoliberalism and its Malcontents. Antipode41: 94–116.
