The financial services revolution has transformed what was once a backwater into a glamorous and dangerous part of modern economies. Intense competition and ferocious struggles for advantage in world markets are the signs of revolutionary change. Michael Moran's book breaks new ground by examining the politics of that revolution. Moran compares the struggles between private interests and public agencies in three great world financial centres - New York, London and Tokyo.

In Chapter 5, William Shughart also considers the part that politics played in banking legislation during the 1930s, but he looks at the banking legislation passed in the United States. Shughart draws par ticular attention to the provisions in the Banking Act of 1933 that required the separation of commercial and investment banking activ ities. Applying a public choice analysis, Shughart asks who gained from the provisions, and he concludes that the commercial banking industry, the investment banking industry, and the U. S. Treasury Department can all be said to have benefited in the years immedi ately following the passage of the act. Richard Timberlake, in his comment, extends Shughart's analysis to show how the federal gov ernment manipulated the monetary policy of the 1930s for its own benefit. The history of the regulation of the savings and loan industry is the subject of Chapter 6. James Barth and Martin Regalia examine the way in which regulation of the industry has evolved since the first savings and loan was established in the 1830s. They conclude that the stated purpose of regulation appears to have changed, even while the regulations themselves often have not. Barth and Regalia provide some important insights into the contribution of thrift regu lation to the current problems facing the indusb-y as well as some suggestions about the direction reform should-and should not take.

The essays in this volume employ the insights and techniques of political science, economics and history to provide a fresh answer to this question.

While many have examined how economic interests motivate political action, Bruce Carruthers explores the reverse relationship by focusing on how political interests shape a market. He sets his inquiry within the context of late Stuart England, when an active stock market emerged and when Whig and Tory parties vied for control of a newly empowered Parliament. Carruthers examines the institutional linkage between politics and the market that consisted of three joint-stock companies--the Bank of England, the East India Company, and the South Sea Company--which all loaned large sums to the government and whose shares dominated trading on the stock market. Through innovative research that connects the voting behavior of individuals in parliamentary elections with their economic behavior in the stock market, Carruthers demonstrates that party conflict figured prominently during the company foundings as Whigs and Tories tried to dominate company directorships. For them, the national debt was as much a political as a fiscal instrument. In 1712, the Bank was largely controlled by the Whigs, and the South Sea Company by the Tories. The two parties competed, however, for control of the East India Company, and so Whigs tended to trade shares only with Whigs, and Tories with Tories. Probing such connections between politics and markets at both institutional and individual levels, Carruthers ultimately argues that competitive markets are not inherently apolitical spheres guided by economic interest but rather ongoing creations of social actors pursuing multiple goals.