This research investigates how the evolution of finance and the process of urbanization concurrently give rise to different notions of cyclical risk that are coupled to metropolitan form. Specifically, I illustrate the spatial consequences of the political economy of the U.S. monetary-financial system, paying particular attention to the historical process by which institutional risk allocation failures have shaped urban development in Detroit. The city and its suburbs arose, in part, because building at the city's edge was deemed risk-free and cheap -- a natural extension of the frontier mentality codified in the convex bid-rent curves of the monocentric city model. Specifically, this research proposes a new financial-spatial narrative that links a historicized reading of Detroit's rise and decline to Michigan's turbulent financial history over the last 200 years: First, Detroit emerges as a stereotype of land-capital dynamics. Its rise and fall are largely driven by successive waves of overaccumulation and speculative real estate development. Second, Michigan's financial history is a prototype of financial instability. The institutional origins of financial instability and banking-led crises in Michigan can be found in its 1830s legislative embrace of free banking. Detroit was at the epicenter of the 1933 banking crisis and is today setting precedent for municipal bankruptcy. Third, the Detroit metro area can be read as an archetype of frontier finance; as the financial frontier moves across time and space, different “zones of exclusion” emerge in the form of mortgage speculation, large scale vacancies, financial illiteracy and underbanked sections of the population.

1. David Bieri
 Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Michigan
Political Space Economy Lab, Ann Arbor, MI
ICOS Lecture – October 2014

2. Urban questions
•Why do cities exist?
•Why do cities vary in size?
•Why do competing firms cluster?
•What causes urban growth and decline?
•Who benefits from urban growth?
 Does money matter for cities?

3. Urban questions
•Conventional approaches in urban economics, economic geography do not consider role of monetary-financial system in process of urbanization.
•Focus of this talk:
How the “spatial non-neutrality of money” shapes the American metropolis
Historical process of U.S. urbanization driven by changing tension between “money interest” and “the public interest”
Develop a spatial theory of financial instability (cf. Lösch 1940, Minsky 1992, and Mehrling 1997)

4. Urban hierarchy: Stylized facts

5. Urban hierarchy: Stylized facts

6. Urban hierarchy: Stylized facts
Source: Kim (2007)

7. Urban hierarchy: Stylized facts

8. Urban hierarchy: Stylized facts
Source: Abel and Deitz (2010)

9. Urban hierarchy: Stylized facts
•Geography (still) matters: Christaller’s central places
–Continued importance of “portage cities” in the United States
–Industries are geographically concentrated
–Concentration is too great to be explained by exogenous spatial differences in natural advantage
•Cities are neither completely specialized nor completely diverse (specialisation, concentration and diversity)
•Large cities produce more output per capita than small cities
•Urban evolutions: The urban hierarchy is “restless”
–Innovation-driven shocks drive churning of industries across cities.
–Cities grow or decline following net gains or losses of industries.
–Changes occur within a stable distribution (“Zipf’s Law”)

10. “A Unified Theory of Urban Living” (Bettencourt and West, 2010)

11. “It’s Time for an Urbanization Science” (Solecki, Seto and Marcotullio, 2013)
•Panoply of research on cities has failed to focus on process of urbanization and its intersection with other (environmental) systems
•Contemporary urban studies are unlikely to deliver the information and knowledge required
•“Urbanization Science” needs to
–Define components of urbanization across time, space, and place
–Identify the universal laws of city-building
–Link system of urbanization with other fundamental processes that occur in the world

12. On theory and vision
“[…] we should have a view that in a sense is prescientific of what the game is about, about the way the beast functions, about the way the various parts of economics and social science are related and, yes, about our own maps of Utopia.
Once we have a vision, then our control of theory, our command of institutional detail, and our knowledge of history are to be marshaled to support the vision – Schumpeter’s methodology of vision and theory, with theory a servant of vision, may seem cynical, but, in truth, it is honest. It is a way of systematizing thought so that dialogue could take place.
The division between vision and technique leads to a recognition that we are marshaling evidence when we do theory, when we analyze data, and when we read history. Schumpeter’s methodology undercuts much of the pretentious nonsense about economics as a science and elevates the importance of discourse, of dialogue, and of just plain good talk for a serious study of society.”
– Hyman Minsky (“Taking Schumpeter’s Methodology Seriously”, 1992)

13. Source: Thomson Reuters
http://sciencewatch.com/nobel/2014-predictions/economics-laureates
Predictions for 2014 Nobel Prize in Economics: We’re all Schumpeterians now … but with “monetary amnesia”!
How economists forgot Schumpeter’s monetary theory … (see below)

14. Outline
1.Money and the city: Ideas, institutions and events
2.Detroit’s place in U.S. monetary history
3.A tale of two hierarchies (hierarchy of cities, hierarchy of money)
4.Rethinking the geography of money

15. Key hypotheses
1.The evolution of the urban spatial structure is the joint result of the historical urbanization of capital (urban hierarchy) and recurring financial instability (monetary hierarchy), alternatingly emanating from the real sector or the financial sector.
2.These interrelated processes govern spatial risk distribution, financial regulation and government intervention, leading to financial innovation, opening up new financial frontiers.
3.In turn, this creates alternative avenues for the (sub)- urbanization of capital, giving rise to new dynamics for the evolution of urban form.

16. Money and the city: Ideas, institutions and events

17. Money and the city
“The metropolis has always been the seat of the money economy.”
– Georg Simmel (Die Philosophie des Geldes, 1930)
“Space is a social morphology: it is to lived experience what form itself is to the living organism, and just as intimately bound up with function and structure … what we are concerned with, then, is the long history of space, even though space is neither a ‘subject’ or an ‘object’ but rather a social reality – that is to say, a set of relations and forms.”
– Henri Lefebvre (La Production de l'Espace, 2002)
“Capitalism is essentially a financial system, and the peculiar behavioral attributes of a capitalist economy center around the impact of finance upon system behavior."
– Hyman Minsky (Issues in Banking and Monetary Analysis,1967)

18. Ideas, institutions and events
Two important ideas unified: The idea of modern money and finance and the Jeffersonian ideal of the spatial arrangement of the metropolis.

19. Money matters: Theories
Economic paradigm
Origins of economic cycles
Real-monetary sector relationship
Nature of crises
Spatial consequences
Classics
Real sector
Neutral
Resources
Not considered
Marxism (Lefebvre, Harvey)
Real sector
Non-neutral
Over- accumulation
Urbanization
(Post) Keynesianism
Both sectors
Non-neutral
Financial instability
Not considered
Monetarism
Monetary sector
(Super)neutral
Inflation
Not considered
“New” urban economics, new economic geography
Real sector
Neutral
None
Agglomeration

20. Money matters: Stocks and flows
“Capital represents itself in the form of a physical landscape created in its own image, created as use values to enhance the progressive accumulation of capital.”
– Harvey (1978): “The Urban Process under Capitalism: A Framework for Analysis,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2(4): 100—131.
“To analyze how financial commitments affect the economy it is necessary to look at economic units in terms of their cash flows. The cash flow approach looks at all units – be they households, corporations, state and municipal governments, or even national governments – as if they were banks.”
– Minsky (2008): Stabilizing and Unstable Economy, New York: McGraw-Hill, p 221.

21. PK Institutionalism and MMT
Joseph A. Schumpeter (1883–1950)
John M. Keynes (1883–1946)
August Lösch (1906–1945)
Hyman P. Minsky (1919 –1996)
John R. Commons (1862–1945)
Morris A. Copeland (1896–1989)
Wesley C. Mitchell (1874–1948)
Post Keynesian Institutionalism:
“Spatial Non-Neutrality of Money”
“Flow of funds”
“Financial instability”
“Spatial price waves, hierarchy of money”
Edgar M. Hoover, Jr. (1907–?)
Walter Isard
(1919–2010)
Alvin H. Hansen (1887– 1975)
Wassily W. Leontief (1906– 1999)
Harvard, early 1950s
Kiel Institut für Weltwirtschaft, late 1920s
U. Michigan, 1930s

22. Schumpeter’s monetary theory
•Long gestation period with many trials and misadventures
–Das Wesen und der Hauptinhalt der theoretischen Nationalökonomie (1908), attempts to overcome fissures of the “Methodenstreit”
–Das Wesen des Geldes (1970)
•Standard approaches to monetary theory are missing:
–Determinants of money demand, money supply
–Money and real sector interaction, monetary policy
•Walrasian GE beginnings abandoned, later emphasis on “institution of money”:
–Sociology of money, institutions for social accounting, Money creation by banks
–Nature of money, theory of price level, theory of money process and functions of the money market

23. Schumpeter’s monetary theory
“Event today, textbooks on Money, Currency and Banking are more likely than not to begin with an analysis of a state of things in which legal tender “money” is the only means of paying and lending ... it may be more useful […] to look upon capitalist finance as a clearings system that cancels claims and debts and carries forward the differences – so that “money” payments come in only as a special case without any particularly fundamental importance.
In other words: practically and analytically, a credit theory of money is possibly preferable to a monetary theory of credit.”
– Schumpeter (1954, p.717)

24. “Sunspots” – Circuit of capital
Sources: Jevons (1884); Wagemann (1930); Diamond and Dybvig (1983); Kiyotaki and Moore (1997)

25. Ideas, institutions and events

26. Ideas, institutions and events
Source: Bieri (2014)

27. Detroit’s place in U.S. monetary history
(1805 – present)

28. The fluttering veil
“It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution by tomorrow morning.”
Henry Ford (1922)

29. Detroit in U.S. monetary-financial history
•Stereotype of land-capital dynamics: Detroit’s rise and fall are largely driven by successive stages of monetary-financial evolution that enabled speculative real estate development.
•Prototype of financial instability: Institutional origins of financial instability and banking-led crises in Michigan begin in 1830s (Free Banking). Detroit is at the epicenter of 1933 banking crisis; municipal bankruptcy precedent in 2013.
•Archetype of frontier finance; As the financial frontier moves across time and space, different “zones of exclusion” emerge (mortgage speculation, large scale vacancies, financial illiteracy, underbanked sections of the population).

30. Form follows finance
Source: Bunge’s “Fitzgerald: Detroit Geographical Expedition and Institute” (1971)

31. “Frontier Finance”: 1805–1815
•After great fire of 1805, the Bank of Detroit begins, without any congressional authorisation.
•Gov. Hull and Woodward leave for Washington in 1805 to meet with Congress to craft the legislation to incorporate the City, and authorise the Woodward Plan and banking.
•Bank of Detroit is a true pioneer and has no competitor west of the Alleghenies.
•Paper currency swindle leads to closing of several Detroit banks. Law passed that prohibited unauthorized banking.
•First Bank of the United States’ charter expires in 1811. End of first era of centralised frontier finance.

32. “Frontier Finance”: 1816–1845
•Reorganisation of Northwest Territory opens up the western frontier to development ($1.5/acre)
–Huge influx of population and land speculation. Capital shortage.
–Michigan is deemed to become the wealthiest state in the Union.
•Bank of Michigan chartered in 1817 with primarily east coast Whig money and General Lewis Cass. Michigan State Bank founded in 1835 by John R. Williams with the help of Albany capitalists.
•Second Bank of the United States is chartered from 1816 to 1836. End of second episode of central banking
•Michigan pioneers free banking legislation in 1837, banks jumps dramatically. Other states follow and adopt “Free Banking Acts”

33. “Frontier Finance”: 1933
•The deepest banking crisis of the Great Depression touched off by failure of two Detroit banks in early 1933 (Guardian National Bank of Commerce and the First National Bank in Detroit among five largest national bank casualties).
•Henry Ford threatens to pull funds out of Michigan banks; Bank holiday in Michigan to prevent bank run, followed by national bank holiday shortly thereafter (Emergency Banking Act of 1933).
•Reconstruction Finance Corporation and Alfred Sloan (GM) create the National Bank of Detroit. Federal funding and assumed assets of the two failed Detroit banks (First National Bank of Detroit and the Guardian National Bank of Commerce)

34. “Frontier Finance”: 2000–date
•With Wall Street’s help, Detroit under the Kilpatrick Administration borrows $1.44 billion to restructure pension fund debt. ($2.8 billion over the next 22 years; represents nearly one-fifth of the city’s debt)
•Kresge Foundation and other industrio-philantropic interests emerge as key players in pre-crash Detroit real estate market, looking to invest in Downtown (waterfront) and Midtown areas, the City puts out a plan to shrink the city.
•Dan Gilbert’s Quicken Loan emerges as one of the largest nondepository mortgage credit intermediaries of the Great Housing Boom, with large presence in the US subprime markets.

35. “Frontier Finance”: 2000–date
•Real estate crash and new urban renewal
–Kresges pull funding from smaller projects and invest in Detroit Future City Plan.
–Gilbert emerges the new “Charles Trowbridge (1800-1883)”, a key frontier financier, and with a visionary financial commitment to downtown and Midtown
•Financialisation, bankruptcy and post-crisis rebirth
–One of the country’s largest-ever urban farming projects gets green light from Detroit and state officials. (Hantz Farms, 140 acres of land on Detroit’s east side, owned by Hantz Group, primarily a financial services company)
–Developers propose to buy Belle Isle

36. Regional flow of funds
Source: Isard (1960)

37. Form follows finance

38. “Frontier Finance”
•Three interrelated themes emerge:
–Co-movement of capital flows and changes in the urban functional hierarchy
–Socio-spatial evolution of the frontier concept
–Michigan’s “money men” and Detroit’s “cathedrals of finance”

39. “Frontier Finance”
•Three interrelated themes emerge:
–Co-movement of capital flows and changes in the urban functional hierarchy
–Socio-spatial evolution of the frontier concept
–Michigan’s “money men” and Detroit’s “cathedrals of finance”

40. Form follows finance
•The rearticulating land-capital nexus is instrumental to history of urban and financial development:
–Co-movement of capital flows and changes in the urban functional hierarchy
–Inextricable linkage between the process of securitization and urban sprawl
–Flow of mortgage credit, land- use change and the morphological transformation over the cycle of the Housing Boom and Housing Bust

41. “Money interest” vs. “Public interest”
Detroit is at the epicenter of cyclical instability driven by the spatio-temporal evolution of the U.S. monetary-financial system and its urban hierarchy.
–“Proto-Central Banking” (1795 – 1815)
–“The Great Banking Experiment” (1816 – 1845)
–“The Great Banking Crash” (1933)
–“The Securitisation Bubble” (2000– ) and the post-crisis normal
 Central tension between “money interest” and “public interest” as a key theme for the last two centuries of Detroit’s economic history

42. A tale of two hierarchies: The hierarchy of cities and hierarchy of money

43. A tale of two hierarchies
•Hierarchy of cities: Cities as “organisations”, positioned within a spatial order of economic production.
•Hierarchy of money: All money is credit money and credit is always and everywhere fundamentally hierarchical in nature. Credit allocation as a core function of modern states.
Historical interaction between urban and monetary hierarchy matters for distribution and evolution of economic activity across space.
The trajectory of spatial development and the advancement of the monetary-financial system is a joint historical process

44. A tale of two hierarchies
•Hierarchy of cities: Cities as “organisations” within a spatial order of economic production
–Diversity in size and scope from differences in scale economies relative to per-capita demand.
–Small number of large cities and large number of small cities
–Place in hierarchy is changing over time, depending on relative specialisation

45. A tale of two hierarchies
•Hierarchy of money: All money is credit money and credit is always and everywhere fundamentally hierarchical in nature
–The modern monetary-financial system (MFS) is hierarchical in finance and in power (“taxes drive money”, “lender/dealer of last resort”).
–MFS is a hybrid where public liabilities (“outside money”, a net asset to the private sector) and private liabilities (“inside money”)
–Spatial relationship between financial variables and institutional functions matters for urban development (e.g. interest rates or credit intermediation)
–Hierarchy of money shifts across economic cycle through three phases (hedge finance, speculative finance and Ponzi schemes)
–Money and credit fluctuate between states of discipline and states of elasticity (cf. Mehrling 2012).

46. A tale of two hierarchies
•Hierarchy of money:
•Hierarchy of balance sheets:
Money
Gold

Currency

Deposits
Credit
Securities
Central Bank
Banking System
Private Sector
Assets
Liabilities
Assets
Liabilities
Assets
Liabilities
Gold
Currency
Curreny
Deposits
Deposits
Securities
Securities

47. Urban hierarchy: The laws of motion
•Path dependency vs. standard narrative
•Higher productivity occurs because
–large cities disproportionately attract both high- and lows-skilled (“extreme-skill complementarity” of spatial sorting),
–large cities select more productive entrepreneurs and firms
–agglomeration economies (sunk cost, IRS)
•Urban efficiencies (“contrasts in agglomeration”) depend on
–Numbers (such as city or industry size),
–Nature of urban interactions (“The whys and wherefores of urban diversification” Chinitz 1961; Jacobs 1969)

48. Urban hierarchy: The laws of motion
•Agglomeration economies differ in important ways
–localization economies attenuate rapidly across space
–industrial organization affects the benefits of agglomeration
•The microeconomic determinants of agglomeration
–3 Marshallian transportation costs: “goods, people, ideas”
–Input-output linkages (input sharing, product shipping costs)
–Labor market pooling
–Knowledge spillovers
–Natural advantage (“first geography” vs. “second geography”)
•“Coagglomeration” matters
–General tendency of various industries to locate together,
–Clusters …

49. Monetary hierarchy: Theories
•Two main approaches to monetary theory
•Money as a medium of exchange, unit of account and store of value
–Money is a numéraire good, arising from portfolio preferences, intermediation technologies and high-powered government money
–Monetary sector forms “veil” behind which “real economy” operates
•Money as a form of credit (“credit theory of money”)
–Promise to pay income at some future point.
–Debt claims to assured income flows provide liquidity which can be bought or sold)
–Taxes-drive money view

50. Monetary hierarchy: Mechanics
•Business cycles across different economic paradigms:
–Marxian: M – C – M’
–Keynesian: Y = C + I + G + (X-M)
–Monetarist: PY = MV (Quantity Theory)
–Flow of funds: sources of funds = uses of funds (endogenous money)
•Re-theorising money and finance within economic geography
–Taking history and institutions seriously
–Theorizing spatial aspects of the monetary-financial system

51. Money matters
“[M]oney plays a part of its own and affects motives and decisions and is, in short, one of the operative factors in the situation, so that the course of events cannot be predicted, either in the long period or in the short, without a knowledge of the behaviour of money between the first state and the last.” – Keynes (1933, p.123)
“The essential problem is whether any macroeconomic theory that is constructed upon a set of assumptions from which the proposition that money and finance are neutral is derived can be a serious guide to understanding our economy and to the development of policies for our economy.” – Minsky (1993, p.77)

52. Money matters
“The supposed relationship between [economic quantities] falls down because the variables are not constituted or linked in a mechanistic way. It would be better to conceive of the financial system not as a machine but as an organism, which includes automatic reflexes, processes of substitution and immune systems which frustrate intervention and control.
Just as in the human body, successful remedial action is possible, but it is more complex and difficult than a mechanistic theory would suggest.”
Hodgson, G. (1993): “The Economy as an Organism — Not a Machine,” Futures, 25(3): 392—403.

53. Rethinking the geography of money

54. Treatment of money in regional analysis
•Mainstream urban and regional economics is fully “neoclassical” (including NEG or “geographical economics”)
•Economic geography is steeped Marxian political economy (largely without M–C–M’ or MELT)
•A case of “Hamlet without the Prince”? Mostly, but there are important exceptions:
–Regional differentials in the cost of credit (Lösch, 1954)
–Keynesian theory of regional financial markets (Dow, 1986)
–A Post Keynesian perspective on the relation between banking and regional development (Chick and Dow, 1988)

55. Treatment of money in regional analysis
Employment, earnings
Urban labour market
Cost-of-living
Real estate, housing market
Amenities
Geography, environment, local public goods, infrastructure, culture
Regional employment share
Migration, job creation, firm formation
relative rents
relative wages
expenditure
real income
Monetary sector
Money supply, credit intermediation, liquidity preference, interest rates, exchange rates
Inflation
price level of labour and current output
Interest rates
price level of capital assets

56. Circular flows: Regional perspectives
Source: Kircher (1962)

57. A tale of two hierarchies
Source: Kircher (1962)

58. Geographies of money
•Little “monetary content” of contemporary economic geography, despite active research on financialisation
•Marxian and other classical approaches focus on accumulation (“Hamlet without the prince”)
–Spatial re-switching of capital (Harvey’s “spatial fix”)
–Sheppard and Barnes’ (1990) The Capitalist Space Economy: Geographical Analysis after Ricardo, Marx and Sraffa
•Re-theorise “real-financial linkages” by spatialising the Post Keynesian approach to monetary theory
–Circular cumulative (spatial) causation and financial instability, not accumulation (Kalecki & Kaldor meet Minsky)
–Inherent hierarchy of money matters for the hierarchy of spatial development (Knapp & Hawtrey meet Lösch)

59. Towards a spatial “money view”?
•Spatialisation of the hierarchies of money:
–Gold, currency, deposits and securities
–Balance sheets, market makers: Central bank, banks (small and big), dealers and money funds
–Prices: Exchange rate, par, interest rate
•Spatial hierarchy of money is dynamic across the economic cycle, expanding and contracting in quality and quantity (cf. Mehrling 2011, 2012)

60. REFERENCES – I
Abel, Jason R. and Deitz, Richard. 2010. “Bypassing the Bust: The Stability of Upstate New York’s Housing Markets during the Recession,” FRBNY Current Issues in Economics and Finance, 16(3): 1–9.
Adrian, Tobias, and Hyun Song Shin. 2010. “The Changing Nature of Financial Intermediation and the Financial Crisis of 2007–09.” Annual Review of Economics 2(1): 603–18.
Bieri, David S. 2009. “Financial Stability, the Basel Process and the New Geography of Regulation.” Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 2(2): 303-331.
Bieri, David S. 2013. “Form Follows Function: On the Relationship between Real Estate Finance and Urban Spatial Structure.” CriticalProductive 2(1): 7–18.
Bieri, David S. 2014. “Financial Stability Rearticulated: Institutional Reform, Post-Crisis Governance, and the New Regulatory Landscape in the United States ,” in Iglesias-Rodrígues, P. (Ed.) Building Responsive and Responsible Regulators in the Aftermath of the Financial Crisis, Cambridge, Intersentia Publishers.
Bunge William Wheeler, Jr. Fitzgerald: Geography of a Revolution. 2nd ed. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
Chinitz, Benjamin. 1961. “Contrasts in Agglomeration: New York and Pittsburgh,” American Economic Review, 51(2): 279–289.
City of Detroit. 1945. An Illustrated Story of the First Half-Century of Public Lighting in Detroit, 1895--1945. Fifth Annu. Detroit, MI: Public Lighting Commission.
Conzen, Michael P. 1975. “Capital Flows and the Developing Urban Hierarchy: State Bank Capital in Wisconsin, 1854–1895” Economic Geography 51(4): 321–338.
Copeland, Morris A. 1952. A Study of Moneyflows in the United States. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Denis, Hector. 1904. Histoire Des Systèmes Économiques et Socialistes. Paris: V. Giard & E. Briére.
Diamond, Douglas W. and Dybvig, Philip H. 1983. “Bank Runs, Deposit Insurance, and Liquidity,” Journal of Political Economy, 91(3): 401–419.
Dillard, Dudley. 1980. “A Monetary Theory of Production: Keynes and the Institutionalists,” Journal of Economic Issues,14(2): 255–272.
Dillard, Dudley. 1987. “Money as an Institution of Capitalism ,”Journal of Economic Issues, 21(4):1623–1647.
Föhl, Carl. 1937.Geldschöpfung und Wirtschaftskreislauf. Munich: Duncker und Humblot.
Harvey, David. 1985. “The Urbanization of Capital: Studies in the History and Theory of Capitalist Urbanization.” In Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1–31.
Ingham, Geoffrey. K., Kain, John F. and Ginn, J. Royce. 1972. The Detroit Prototype of the NBER Urban Simulation Model, New York: Columbia University Press.
Isard, Walter. 1960. Methods of Regional Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jevons, W Stanley. 1884. Investigations in Currency and Finance. London: MacMillan and Co.
Kiyotaki, Nobuhiro and Moore, John. 1997. “Credit Cycles,” Journal of Political Economy, 105(2): 211–248.

61. REFERENCES – II
Kim, Sukkoo. 2007. “Changes in the Nature of Urban Spatial Structure in the United States, 1890–2000,” Journal of Regional Science, 47(3): 273–287
Kircher, Harry B. 1962. “The Geography of Financial Agglomeration in the United States.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Clark University.
Labasse, Jean. 1974. L'Éspace Financier: Analyse Géographique. Paris: Armand Colin.
Lefebvre, Jean-François. 1970. La Révolution Urbaine. Paris: Gallimard.
Lösch, August. 1940. Die räumliche Ordnung der Wirtschaft: Eine Untersuchung über Standort, Wirtschaftsgebiete und internationalen Handel . Jena: Gustav Fischer.
Lösch, August. 1940. Geographie des Zinses. Die Bank, 33:24–28.
Lösch, August. 1941. “Die Lehre vom Transfer – neu gefaßt.” in von Zwiedineck-Sündenhorst, O. and Albrecht, G. (Eds.) Abhandlungen Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, Jena: Gustav Fischer, Band 154: 385–402.
Lösch, August. 1949. “Theorie der Währung: Ein Fragment,“ Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 62: 35–88.
Lösch, August. 1954. The Economics of Location, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Mehrling, Perry G. 1997. The Money Interest and the Public Interest: American Monetary Thought, 1920–1970 , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mehrling, Perry G. 2011. The New Lombard Street: How the Fed Became the Dealer of Last Resort. Princeton University Press.
Mehrling, Perry G. 2012. “The Inherent Hierarchy of Money”, Mimeograph, Barnard College, Columbia University.
Minsky, Hyman P. 1992. “Taking Schumpeter's Methodology Seriously” in Scherer, F. M. & Perlman, M. (Eds.) Entrepreneurship, Technological Innovation, and Economic Growth, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 363--370.
Minsky, Hyman P. 1992. “On the Non-Neutrality of Money,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Quarterly Review 18(1): 77–82.
Minsky, Hyman P. 2008. Stabilizing an Unstable Economy. New York: McGraw Hill.
Pozsar, Zoltan, Tobias Adrian, Adam Ashcraft, and Hayley Boesky. 2013. “Shadow Banking.” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review 19(4): 1–17.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1954. History of Economic Analysis, New York: Oxford University Press.
Studenski, Paul. 1958. The Income of Nations: Theory, Measurement, and Analysis Past and Present. New York: New York University Press.
Thompson, G F. 1998. “Encountering Economics and Accounting: Some Skirmishes and Engagements.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 23(3): 283–323.
Tobin, James. 1958. “Liquidity Preference as Behavior Towards Risk,” Review of Economic Studies, 25(3): 65–86.
Wagemann, Ernst F. 1930. Economic Rhythm: A Theory of Business Cycles. 1st ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Wagemann, Ernst F. 1940. Wo Kommt Das Viele Geld Her? Geldschöpfung Und Finanzlenkung Im Kriege. Düsseldorf: Völkischer Verlag GmbH.
Whipple, Fred H. 1889. Municipal Lighting. Detroit, MI.