The Grammar of Money An Analytical Account of Money as a Discursive Institution in Light of the Practice of Complementary Currencies Leander Bindewald, MSc. (Diplombiologe), M.A. Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate School University of Cumbria and Lancaster University Lancaster, September 2018 Wordcount: 79,970 Abstract Since the global financial crisis in 2008, complementary currencies - from local initiatives like the Brixton Pound to timebanks, business-to-business currencies and, of course, Bitcoin - have received unprecedented attention by academics, policy makers, the media and the general public. However, at close theoretic inspection money itself remains as elusive a phenomenon as water must be to fish. Economic and business disciplines commonly only describe the use and functionality of money rather than its nature. Sociology and philosophy have a more fundamental set of approaches, but remain largely unintegrated in financial policy and common perception. At the same time, new forms of currency challenge predominant definitions of money and their implementation in the law and financial regulation. Unless our understanding of money and currencies is questioned and extended to consistently reflect theory and practice, its current misalignment threatens to impede much needed reform and innovation of the financial systems towards equity, democratic participation and sustainability. After reviewing current monetary theories and their epistemological underpinning, this thesis proposes a new theoretic framework of money as a ‘discursive institution’ that can be applied coherently to all monetary phenomena, conventional and unconventional. It also allows for the empirical analysis of currencies with the methodologies of neo-institutionalism, practice theory and critical discourse analysis. This will here be demonstrated in a transdisciplinary triangulation concerning three sets of data from the diverse field of complementary currencies, the publications of the Bank of England and monetary laws from the United States. The findings do not only demonstrate the heuristic value of the theory of discursive institutionalism in regard to money and complementary currencies, but highlight how regulatory and legal definitions even of conventional money lack the coherence and clarity required to appropriately explicate monetary innovation. Accordingly, this study concludes with recommendations for monetary theory, policy and research that can address the current inconsistencies. i Declaration I declare that the research in this thesis is my own work. It has not been published or submitted for another degree elsewhere. During the study placement in Oakland, California, January to March 2016, I was grateful for the guidance and support of attorneys Janelle Orsi and Simon Mont and the generosity of their colleagues and all members of the Sustainable Economics Law Center worker cooperative. From February 2015 I was financially supported by a studentship and fee waiver of the University of Cumbria. And my world-first payment of a university fee using bitcoins (see Evans, 2014) was made possible by the friendly bitcoin donation of Matthew Slater. ii Here is to you, Katie iii Acknowledgements This thesis would neither have started or continued or been completed without the encouragement, support, friendship and love of many wonderful people near and far. Trying to leave notions of accounting and quantifying out for now, the following special few are mentioned in alphabetical disorder: Agnes, Dave, Geoff, Georgia, Jo, Josh, Kathrin, Katie, Osia, Patricia, Paula, Stephanie, and Tony. Next to the guidance from my supervisors, Prof. Jem Bendell and Dr. Ian Chapman, my learning on methodology and social theory benefited greatly through the many timely pointers, explanations and challenges by Prof. Jérôme Blanc (Science Po Lyon), Dr. Georgina Gomez (ISS, The Hague), Dr. Bertie Kaal (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam), Rolf Schröder (RAMICS), Dr. Audrey Sleight (2nd supervisor of this thesis until September 2016), Dr. Kaz Stuart (University of Cumbria), and - distinctly enough to disrupt the alphabet - Visiting Professor Richard Little (University of Cumbria and Impact International). During the years before I even considered to turn my zeal for the topic of money into a doctoral research project, it felt like I was standing on the shoulders of giants, and sometimes actually flying with them. My deep gratitude and respect goes to all the complementary currency and monetary reform practitioners and elders that shared their knowledge, time, hospitality, resources, and in many cases the most valuable gift of friendship with me. At the risk of forgetting some or many that also deserve a mention, here is explicitly to: Andreas Bangemann, Ben Dineen, Chris Cook, Annette Riggs, Ben Dyson, Christian Gelleri, Arie Ben David, Bernard Lietaer, Christophe Place, Arthur Brock, Bruno Théret, Dante Monsoon, Becky Booth, Carlos de Freitas, Dave Birch, iv David Boyle, Jonathan Dawson, Preston Austin, Declan Kennedy, Josef Davies-Coates, Richard Logie, Edgar Cahn, Josh Ryan-Collins, Rob van Hilten, Edgar Kampers, Kathrin Latsch, Rolf Schilling, Eric Harris-Brown, Ludwig Schuster, Rolf Schroeder, Etienne Hayem, Marc Brakken, Shann Turnbull, Fernanda Ibarren, Marco Sachy, Simon Mont, Frank Jansky, Margrit Kennedy, Stephanie Rearick, Gaël Van Weyenbergh, Maria Scordialos, Stephen DeMeulenaere, Georgina Gómez, Mary Fee, Susan Steed, Graham Boyd, Matthew Slater, Susan Witt, Henk van Arkel, Michael Linton, Sybille Saint Girons, Hugo Godschalk, Michel Bauwens, Thomas Greco, Hugo Wanner, Nigel Dodd, Tim Jenkins, Igor Byttebier, Norbert Rost, Tom Salfield, Janelle Orsi, Otmar Donnerberg, Tomi Astikainen, Jean-Francois Noubel, Pat Conaty, Tony Greenham, Jean-Luc Roux, Paul Gilbert, Veronika Spielbichler, Jens Martignoni, Paul Glover, and Will Ruddick. Jérôme Blanc, Peter Krause, John Rogers, Philipp Degens, Last but not least, a very special thank you for the patience, understanding and countless catalytic conversations with which Katie Carr has accompanied me on the long and often steep road to completion. Also to Charlotte Mason for proofreading the final draft and Marcus Petz and Christophe Place for their thorough reading and suggested improvements thereof. My heartfelt gratitude to you all! v Table of Contents ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................I DECLARATION..............................................................................................II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................IV Part I – Theory 1 INTRODUCTION - THE ONLY CONSTANT IS CHANGE...........................1 1.1 WHY MONEY MATTERS..............................................................................................1 1.2 THE DIVERSIFICATION OF MONEY..................................................................................3 1.3 SITUATING THIS INQUIRY............................................................................................7 1.4 OVERVIEW..........................................................................................................12 2 THEORETICAL BACKDROP - MONEY AS WE KNOW IT......................19 2.1 TWO QUESTIONS: WHERE DOES MONEY COME FROM?.....................................................19 2.2 SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM.........................................................................................26 2.3 CONVENTIONAL ACCOUNTS OF ‘MONEY’.......................................................................31 3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK - MONEY AS A DISCURSIVE INSTITUTION..............................................................................................41 3.1 INSTITUTIONAL THEORIES OF ‘MONEY’..........................................................................41 3.2 DISCURSIVE INSTITUTIONALISM..................................................................................53 3.3 IN A MANNER OF SPEAKING: MONEY AND CURRENCIES......................................................58 4 METHODOLOGY- ANALYSING ‘MONEY’ AS A DISCURSIVE INSTITUTION..............................................................................................70 4.1 TRIANGULATION AND TRANSDISCIPLINARITY....................................................................70 4.2 CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS.................................................................................73 4.3 PRACTICE THEORY AND CULTURAL HISTORICAL ACTIVITY THEORY.........................................79 4.4 THE GRAMMAR OF INSTITUTIONS................................................................................86 4.5 APPROACH TO LEGAL ANALYSIS.................................................................................92 Part II – Analysis 5 DISCURSIVE CHALLENGERS - THE PRACTICE OF COMPLEMENTARY CURRENCIES..........................................................98 5.1 CHAT AND THE TOPOLOGY OF A PRACTICE....................................................................98 5.2 CURRENCY INITIATIVES AS ACTIVITY SYSTEMS..............................................................103 5.3 ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY SYSTEMS................................................................109 5.3.1 BRIXTON POUND (LONDON, UK).......................................................................109 5.3.2 SARDEX (SARDINIA, ITALY)..............................................................................117 5.3.3 DANE