{"id":2088,"date":"2014-05-13T11:38:46","date_gmt":"2014-05-13T10:38:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/charisma.local\/charisma2023\/char1smaSSL\/?post_type=finance&p=2088"},"modified":"2014-05-13T11:44:25","modified_gmt":"2014-05-13T10:44:25","slug":"framing-the-place-of-observation-networks-in-the-recent-sociology-of-finance","status":"publish","type":"finance","link":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/finance\/framing-the-place-of-observation-networks-in-the-recent-sociology-of-finance","title":{"rendered":"Framing the place of observation networks in the recent sociology of finance"},"content":{"rendered":"

The last issue of Universidad de Chile\u2019s social theory journal Revista Mad<\/a> brings a special issue dedicated to discuss the impact of paying attention to \u2018second order observation\u2019 on social studies of finance. This issue is the third installment of an ongoing conversation. The first part was published on the Italian online journal of Sociology, Sociologica<\/a>, where in that great format of theirs, they published the paper by Esposito later translated into Spanish by Mad, together with a series of responses, including David Stark\u2019s contribution published also in the special issue in Chile. The second installment was a workshop carried out in 2013<\/a> at Copenhagen Business School, where Esposito and Stark presented their discussion and received the comments by Christian Frankel and Jos\u00e9 Ossand\u00f3n that were later translated and published by Mad. The Chilean edition included also a closing note by Chilean system theorist Dar\u00edo Rodr\u00edguez. Next June, this conversation will continue in a workshop organized by Celia Lury and David Stark at University of Warwick. As a way to introduce this discussion, I am copying into this post the unpublished (and unpolished!) English version of my notes trying to contextualize the place of observation networks in the recent sociology of finance.<\/p>\n

This text does not aim to summarize the discussion held by Elena Esposito and David Stark on this issue. Its goal instead is to help readers who are not necessarily acquainted with recent developments in economic sociology by making the sub-disciplinary frame in which their discussion is located visible. A full introduction into the recent sociology of markets is also beyond the scope of this text (cf. McFall & Ossand\u00f3n forthcoming). This brief piece is rather like an essay without a main body, consisting only of footnotes pointing at further literature and open speculative questions.<\/p>\n

[Non-proofread draft. See also David Stark’s piece\u00a0‘Observing Observers Observing Observers’<\/a>\u00a0previously published on Charisma]<\/p>\n

Note 1: The new economic sociology and finance<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

In his extremely influential article \u2018Economic action and social structure\u2019, Mark Granovetter (1985) questioned the under-socialized starting point of previous approaches to markets. Instead of the basic situation assumed in neo-classical economics, where isolated suppliers and consumers meet each other motivated by their respective individual interest in selling and buying specific goods, the new economic sociology decided to start from a more realistic social assumption. Economic action is embedded in particular contexts of social relations and those relations, or social networks, should be the sociologists\u2019 object of study (Swedberg & Granovetter 2001). Unlike the substantivist economic anthropology initiated by Karl Polanyi (1992), that distinguished between socially embedded and dis-embedded economic arrangements, Granovetter followed a de-differentiating strategy. That approach, however, could not say much about what makes markets unique. This issue was faced by Harrison White (1981, 2002).<\/p>\n

In White\u2019s view, what makes markets a particular social formation is not that their participants are socially embedded (this is rather what makes them like any other social situation), but that they are \u2018decoupled\u2019. As Weber (Gane 2013) and Simmel (2008) pointed out much earlier, markets are competitive social situations, and competition, White added, is a sophisticated socio-cultural process. In his particular conceptual language, markets are \u2018interfaces\u2019 (White 2008), social formations that emerge from economic agents trying to find their footing by comparing each other actions and goods. Economic agents deal with the inherent uncertainty of economic actions by indirectly observing what others in an equivalent position do. In markets, direct social links are replaced (or complemented) by comparisons with those with whom we share common point of references (for instance similar potential customers). And, as French \u2018Economists of Conventions\u2019 have consistently shown, comparability is not given but it is the outcome of costly processes, and can be found in many varieties (Faverau et al. 2002). There are markets where comparison is quantitative, like in copper, markets of unique goods where comparison is qualitative but a global scale, like in the art or fashion markets, and others more domestic, like in rural cheese, where comparison is local and on case to case basis (Karpik 2010, White 2005).<\/p>\n

The ideas of the \u2018new economic sociology\u2019 have proved quite influential in studying financial markets. See for instance, Baker (1984) on the impact of the size of social networks on stock options volatility, Uzzi (1999) on embeddedness and interest rates in small business lending, Podolny (2001) on uncertainty, signaling, social capital and structural holes in venture capital, and Guseva and Rona-Tas (2001) on social relations and credit card lending in Russia. However, the more recent development of a cohesive sub-field of sociology of finance (Knorr-Cetina & Preda 2012) or \u2018finance studies\u2019 (as it is referred to when emphasizing its multidisciplinary character) has brought important methodological and conceptual innovations that depart from previous sociological understanding of markets.<\/p>\n

Note 2: Mediated interaction and performativity in finance studies<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Aligned with the research style of the social studies of science, where several of the leading figures of finance studies \u2013 such as Karin Knorr Cetina, Donald MacKenzie and Michel Callon – come from, sociology of finance has adopted a descriptive, ethnographic approach. Therefore, instead of mathematically inferring markets from existing statistics, as White has done, or looking for explanatory variables to test, as in most of the \u2018new economic sociology\u2019, much more attention has been paid to the ways in which economic agents actually interact and the instruments they use.<\/p>\n

As Karin Knorr Cetina and Urs Bruegger (2002) showed in their influential work on currency exchange, finance market interaction is not face-to-face<\/i> but face-to-screen<\/i>. Traders do not only observe their comparable peers, for instance another trader from a different investment company, but their observation is technologically mediated. Information technologies- like the social networks studied by Podonly (2001) – are not only pipes through which pre-formed information flows but they are scopic <\/i>devices that enable the development of highly reflexive markets (Knorr-Cetina 2003). But not only the interaction between market agents is mediated, the same can be said about the relation between financial actors and the peculiar goods they normally deal with. Financial agents are equipped with market devices<\/i> (Callon et al. 2007) and these devices do not only help in making sense of sophisticated financial commodities but are also crucial in their valuation and enactment. Accordingly, a considerable amount of research has been carried out on the role played by devices in the practical organization of high frequency trading, stocks, derivatives, and collateralized debt obligations markets (Muniesa 2007, MacKenzie 2011, MacKenzie & Millo 2003, MacKenzie et al. 2012, Poon 2009).<\/p>\n

The emphasis on market devices has had another important consequence which has led to discussions well beyond the rather specialized scope of the sociology of finance (cf. Arizt\u00eda 2012). Market devices, for instance the Black\u2013Scholes model to price derivatives studied by MacKenzie (2006), are not only practitioners\u2019 tools, but they are also the outcome of academic economic knowledge production. In this context, the terms of the relation between sociological and economic knowledge about markets have been rewritten. If economics becomes a very central element in the practical production of financial markets, it cannot only be challenged because of its relatively unrealistic assumptions. In Michel Callon\u2019s words, economic knowledge is not descriptive but performative,<\/i> or even more provocatively, \u2018the economy is embedded in economics\u2019 (Callon 1998, 2007). Accordingly, in the \u2018new new<\/i> sociology of markets\u2019 (McFall & Ossand\u00f3n forthcoming), economists and economics have moved from being the main epistemological counterpart of economic sociology to objects of research on their own that need to be followed.<\/p>\n

Note 3: Observation networks<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

In her recent publications, Elena Esposito has shown her enthusiasm for the performativity<\/i> thesis in financial markets (Esposito 2013). But, she has added, not very different claims can be found in early work by Keynes, with his analogy between finance and a beauty contest, and also in concepts such as \u2018moral hazard\u2019 and \u2018adverse selection\u2019, used in information economics to name situations where present knowledge transforms future markets. Furthermore, these notions, Esposito argues, refer to a more general phenomenon. Economics is one among other modes of observing – and thus performing- financial markets. Therefore, it may be time to search for a more abstract theory of \u2018market circularity\u2019 (cf. Neiburg 2008), that not only includes the techno-scientific descriptions turned market devices studied in the recent sociology of finance, but also the mutual observations theorized by White and the issues pointed out by those economists aware of the disruptive role of social expectations. Unsurprisingly, considering Esposito\u2019s previous trajectory, she finds a solid starting point in concepts developed by social system theorist Niklas Luhmann (Esposito 2011).<\/p>\n

In Luhmann\u2019s theory, the economy is a self-referential system of communications (Luhmann 2013). Property right detaches trading from economic objects and money is based on promises of future payment. The economy is based on expectations and on expectations of expectations, and markets can be understood as recursive networks of observations. But it is not only that economic activity is continuously observed from multiple points of views (like the business press or economics), but the economic operation itself, notably through prices, is constituted by recursive networks of observations. All this is radicalized in finance where risk is not only a mode of observing economic activities but an object of trade on its own and where mechanisms such as credit ratings are not only used to evaluate existing goods but are re-introduced as milestones in further speculative dynamics (Esposito 2014).<\/p>\n

Esposito has made a conceptual call for a sociology of markets that starts from recursive observations. But what could an empirical sociology of finance that introduces these remarks look like? Well, this is what David Stark does in his recent work with Mateo Prato (manuscript). This work carries on, but on a different scale, previous research carried out by Beunza and Stark (2008) on arbitrage and financial analysts. Instead of reconstructing the perspective of financial agents situated among multiple modes of valuing goods, Stark and Prato quantitatively reconstruct the analysts\u2019 networks. But here network does not mean the social context in which analysts are located, but 2-mode heterogeneous networks consisting of analysts linked by their common objects of attention. In other words, unlike previous sociological work on financial analysts (Zuckerman 1999) that have stressed the impact of pre-existing categories in evaluations, Stark and Prato study how analysts\u2019 evaluations of particular securities vary depending on the set of securities they are observing and the reflexive mutual observation loops with those evaluating a similar portfolio.<\/p>\n

Three speculative questions<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

As Stark (2014) writes in his response to Esposito, they are starting up a conversation. But their ambition is high. They propose \u2018observation\u2019 as a bridge between three relatively distant approaches to financial markets in sociology. This multi-focal view cannot be but creative and, as such, also opens up new issues. Let me finish with three speculative questions.<\/p>\n

The three different approaches to financial markets here connected correspond to three different modes of producing and valuing social scientific knowledge. Social network analysis is mostly a quantitative and explicative. Sociology of finance inspired by science and technology studies tends to be descriptive and conceptually flexible. And the weight in Social Systems theory tends to be placed on coherence and consistency in conceptual architecture. Esposito\u2019s work is grounded in this latter tradition, while Stark and Prato\u2019s respect the principles of the first approach. The question is whether the conversation initiated here expects to also combine these different sociological styles (see also: Far\u00edas & Ossand\u00f3n 2011, White et al. 2011). Or, to use the language of Stark\u2019s previous work (Vedres & Stark 2010), is this conversation a pacific structural hole or rather does it aim at being a disruptive \u2018structural fold\u2019 between different sociologies of finance?<\/p>\n

In Luhmann\u2019s terms (2000), to observe implies to distinguish, and a distinction is made between both a marked and an un-marked side. In the discussion reproduced here \u2018observation\u2019 corresponds to the marked side, which does not seem such a bad idea. Observation is abstract enough to connect the performativity thesis with recent economic thinking and can be used in a social network analysis. Also, and without much effort, it could be connected with Knorr Cetina\u2019s scopic<\/i> mechanisms and White\u2019s interfaces. <\/i>But what remains un-marked? Are there other notions that could do the same? What would be the consequences for the sociology of finance if instead of \u2018observation\u2019 the concept chosen was \u2018mediation\u2019 (in the sense of communication, brokerage, and translation present in all these approaches) or maybe \u2018affect\u2019 in the meaning given by Spinoza and of growing influence in recent cultural theory (McKim 2012)?<\/p>\n

In (second order) System Theory not only A observes B and B observes A, but their recursive operation is condensed in new referential points that become stable objects in further observations (Luhmann 2000). This is what Varela calls \u2018enaction<\/i>\u2019 and Von Foerster eigenvalues.<\/i> Callon has used the word \u2018performation\u2019 (Muniesa & Callon 2009) and Serres (1982) \u2018quasi objects and subjects\u2019 to stress similar processes. In White\u2019s theory, identities (individuals, firms, markets and so on) are not pre-existing but are formed in the search for control. Stark and Prato have followed a relational approach to valuation. However, is there space in their method for this kind of ontological recursivity? For instance: what happens when a particular set of securities are grouped into a new category, when some analysts start to be identified as a group, or when a particular credit rating becomes an unavoidable evaluation device? Of course, I understand that this can all be introduced as \u2018control variables\u2019, but the question is whether we could think about a social network approach that is not only heterogeneous and dynamic (cf. Vedres & Stark 2010) but also open to the formation of new kinds of entities.<\/p>\n

References<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Arizt\u00eda, T. (2012) (ed.). Produciendo lo social: usos de las ciencias sociales en el Chile reciente<\/i>. Santiago: Ediciones Universidad Diego Portales.<\/p>\n

Baker, W. (1984) The social structure of a National Securities market. American Journal of Sociology<\/i>, 89(4), 775-811.<\/p>\n

Beunza, D. & Stark, D. (2008) Tools of the trade: the socio-technology of arbitrage in a Wall Street trading room. In: Pinch, T. & Swedberg, R., (eds.) Living in a material world: economic sociology meets science and technology studies. Inside technology<\/i>. MIT Press, Cambridge..<\/p>\n

Callon, M. (1998) \u2018Introduction: the embeddedness of economic markets in economics\u2019 in Callon, M. (ed.) (1998) The Laws of the Market<\/i>. Oxford, Blackwell<\/p>\n

Callon, M.(2007) \u201cWhat Does It Mean To Say That Economics Is Performative?\u201d In Mackenzie, D., F. Muniesa and L. Sui [eds.] (2007) Do Economists make Markets? <\/i>Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 311-357<\/p>\n

Callon, M., Millo, Y. and Muniesa, F.( 2007) (eds.) Market Devices<\/i>, Oxford: Blackwell.<\/p>\n

Esposito, E. (2011). The future of futures: The time of money in financing and society<\/i>. Edward Elgar Publishing.<\/p>\n

Esposito, E. (2013). The structures of uncertainty: performativity and unpredictability in economic operations. Economy and Society<\/i>, 42(1), 102-129.<\/p>\n

Esposito, E. (2014). Circularidades Econ\u00f3micas y observaci\u00f3n de segundo orden: la realidad de las calificaciones crediticias. Revista Mad, <\/i>30, 1-23.<\/p>\n

Esposito, E. (2013). The structures of uncertainty: performativity and unpredictability in economic operations. Economy and Society<\/i>, 42(1), 102-129.<\/p>\n

Favereau, O., Biencourt, O. & Eymard-Duvernay, F. (2002) \u201cWhere do markets come from? From (quality) conventions!’\u201d, in O. Favereau and E. Lazega (eds.) Conventions and structures in economic organization: markets, networks and hierarchies<\/i>, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.<\/p>\n

Far\u00edas, Ignacio, & Jos\u00e9 Ossand\u00f3n (2011). “\u00bfLuhmann para qu\u00e9?” in\u00a0Far\u00edas, Ignacio y Jos\u00e9 Ossand\u00f3n, Comunicaciones, sem\u00e1nticas y redes: Usos y desviaciones de la sociolog\u00eda de Niklas Luhmann<\/i>, M\u00e9xico, DF: Universidad Iberoamericana.<\/p>\n

Gane, N. (2012) Max weber and contemporary capitalism<\/i>. Palgrave Macmillan.<\/p>\n

Granovetter, M. (1985) Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology<\/i> 91, 481-510.<\/p>\n

Guseva, A., & Rona-Tas, A. (2001) \u201cUncertainty, Risk, and Trust: Russian and American Credit Card Markets Compared\u201d American Sociological Review<\/i>, 66 (5), pp. 623-646<\/p>\n

Karpik, L. (2010) Valuing the Unique: The Economics of Singularities, Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford<\/p>\n

Knorr Cetina, K. (2003). From pipes to scopes: The flow architecture of financial markets. Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory<\/i>, 4(2), 7-23.<\/p>\n

Knorr-Cetina, K. & Bruegger, U. (2002) Global Microstructures: The Virtual Societies of Financial Markets\u201d American Journal of Sociology 107, no. 4: 905-950.<\/p>\n

Knorr-Cetina, Karin, & Alex Preda (2012) (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Finance<\/i>. Oxford University Press, Oxford.<\/p>\n

Luhmann, N. (2013). La econom\u00eda de la sociedad como sistema autopoi\u00e9tico. Revista Mad<\/i>, 29, 1-25.<\/p>\n

Luhmann, N. (2000). Art as a social system<\/i>. Stanford University Press, Stanford.<\/p>\n

MacKenzie, D. (2006). An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets MIT Press.<\/p>\n

MacKenzie, D. (2011), \u201cThe Credit Crisis as a Problem in the Sociology of Knowledge\u201d. American Journal of Sociology<\/i>, Vol. 116 (6), pp. 1778-1841.<\/p>\n

Mackenzie, D.& Millo, Y. (2003) Constructing a Market, Performing Theory: the historical sociology of a financial derivatives exchange. American Journal of Sociology<\/i> 109 (1) 107-145<\/p>\n

MacKenzie, D., Beunza, D., Millo, Y., & Pardo-Guerra, J. P. (2012). Drilling through the Allegheny Mountains: liquidity, materiality and high-frequency trading. Journal of cultural economy,<\/i> 5(3), 279-296.<\/p>\n

McKim, J. (2012). De la Micro-percepci\u00f3n y la Micro-pol\u00edtica. Entrevista con Brian Massumi in Ossand\u00f3n, Jos\u00e9 & Vodanovic, Luc\u00eda (eds.) Disturbios Culturales<\/i>. Santiago de Chile: Ediciones Universidad Diego Portales.<\/p>\n

McFall, L. & Ossand\u00f3n, J. (forthcoming) \u2018What\u2019s new in the \u2018new, new economic sociology\u2019 and should Organisation Studies care?\u2019 in, Adler, Paul; du Gay, Paul; Morgan, Glenn; Reed, Mike (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Sociology, Social Theory and Organization Studies: Contemporary Currents<\/i>. Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n

Muniesa, F. (2007). Market technologies and the pragmatics of prices, Economy and Society<\/i>, vol. 36(3) 377-395.<\/p>\n

Muniesa, F. & M. Callon (2009). \u201cLa performativit\u00e9 des sciences \u00e9conomiques\u201d, in P. Steiner & F. Vatin (Eds.), Trait\u00e9 de sociologie \u00e9conomique. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France: 289-324.<\/p>\n

Neiburg, F. (2008). Inflaci\u00f3n, monedas enfermas y n\u00fameros p\u00fablicos. Revista Cr\u00edtica en Desarrollo<\/i> 2, pp. 93- 130.<\/p>\n

Prato, M., & Stark, D. (manuscrito). Attention Structures and Valuation Models: Cognitive Networks among Securities Analysts.<\/p>\n

Polanyi, K. 1992 ‘The Economy as Instituted Process’, in M. Granovetter and R. Swedberg (eds) The Sociology of Economic Life<\/i>, Boulder, San Francisco, Oxford: Westview Press.<\/p>\n

Podolny, Joel M. (2001) “Networks as the Pipes and Prisms of the Market” American Journal of Sociology<\/i> Vol. 107 (4), pp. 33-60.<\/p>\n

Poon, M. (2009) \u201cFrom new deal institutions to capital markets: Commercial consumer risk scores and the making of subprime mortgage finance\u201d Accounting, Organizations and Society<\/i>, Vol. 34 (5), pp. 654-674.<\/p>\n

Serres, M. (1982) The Parasite<\/i>, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.<\/p>\n

Simmel, G. (2008) \u2018Sociology of Competition\u2019, Canadian Journal of Sociology<\/i> Vol. 33 (4), pp. 957-978.<\/p>\n

Stark, D. (2014). Observando las finanzas como una red de observaciones: un comentario a Esposito. Revista Mad,<\/i> 30, 25-38.<\/p>\n

Swedberg, R. & Granovetter, M. (2001) ‘Introduction to second Edition’, in M. Granovetter & R. Swedberg (eds) The Sociology of Economic Life<\/i>, 2nd Edition, Boulder: Westview Press.<\/p>\n

Uzzi, B. (1999) \u201cEmbeddedness in the Making of Financial Capital: How Social Relations and Networks Benefit Firms Seeking Finance\u201d, American Sociological Review<\/i> 64 (4) 481-505.<\/p>\n

Varela, F., Thompson, E. and Rosch, E. (1999) The embodied mind. Cognitive science and human experience<\/i>, Seventh Edition, Cambride: The MIT Press.<\/p>\n

Vedres, B. and Stark, D. (2010) \u201cStructural folds: Generative disruption in Overlapping groups\u201d, American Journal of Sociology<\/i> 115(4) 1150-1190.<\/p>\n

Von Foerster, H. (2003). Understanding understanding: Essays on cybernetics and cognition<\/i>, Springer-Verlag, New York<\/p>\n

White, H. (1981) Where Do Markets Come From? American Journal of Sociology, 87(3) 517-547<\/p>\n

White, H. (2002) Markets from Networks: Socioeconomic models of production<\/i>, Princeton: Princeton University Press.<\/p>\n

White, H. (2005) \u201cInventory of Dynamics in Art Markets\u201d Working Paper, Cultural Policy Center Workshop<\/i>: The Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies, The University of Chicago.<\/p>\n

White, H. (2008) Identity and Control. How Social Formations Emerge<\/i>, 2nd<\/sup> Edition, Princeton: Princeton University Press.<\/p>\n

White, Harrison, Jan Fuhse, Thiemann & Larissa Buchholz (2011) \u201cRedes y Sentido. Estilos e intercambios\u201d in\u00a0Far\u00edas, Ignacio y Jos\u00e9 Ossand\u00f3n (eds.), Comunicaciones, sem\u00e1nticas y redes: Usos y desviaciones de la sociolog\u00eda de Niklas Luhmann<\/i>, M\u00e9xico, DF: Universidad Iberoamericana.<\/p>\n

Zuckerman, E. W. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology<\/i>, 104(5), 1398-1438.<\/p>\n

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Image<\/a> licensed under a Creative Commons agreement. Photo by\u00a0Perpetualtourist2000<\/a>. This photo has been cropped to fit the site requirements.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jose Ossandon introduces some key ongoing debates within economic sociology, while highlighting an ongoing conversation between Elena Esposito and David Stark about how we might attend better to ‘observation networks’ Read More<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"author":28,"featured_media":2089,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[575,579,889,29,886,492,884,357,887,883,888,493,885,818],"class_list":["post-2088","finance","type-finance","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-writing","tag-david-stark","tag-elena-esposito","tag-estudios-dela-economia","tag-finance","tag-harrison-white","tag-jose-ossandon","tag-luhmann","tag-mark-granovetter","tag-networks","tag-observation","tag-observation-networks","tag-performativity","tag-social-studies-of-finance","tag-ssf"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/finance\/2088","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/finance"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/finance"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/28"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2088"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/finance\/2088\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2090,"href":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/finance\/2088\/revisions\/2090"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2089"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2088"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2088"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2088"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}