Doing Debt. Praxeology of sovereign debt in the long 20th century

计划中的网络将从历史的角度研究主权债务的做法。它将集中在具体的程序，情景决策，并在整个漫长的20世纪债务政治行为者的关系，并将特别强调其意义的谈判之间的“国家”和“市场”的边界转移。通过这样做，它旨在避免迄今为止许多学术辩论中采取的决定论观点，并对金融实践，社会知识和经济影响之间的历史联系增加具体的见解。该网络借鉴了最近广泛的行为学的讨论，在文化研究和社会科学，有关其敏感性的非正式行为，为实践的物质性，以及演员知识的内在逻辑。主权债务在过去的各自含义，以及自19世纪末以来公共债务管理的效果，将位于决策的时刻-而不是将它们理解为理论模型或概念秩序的可计算效果。历史之间的跨学科交流，因此，经济学和社会科学应有助于对债务做法进行更深入的研究，并考虑到其复杂性和不一致性。它旨在理解和解释公共债务日常（政治）处理的过程性和历史变化。因此，预定的会议将要求1）暂时性和停顿，2）空间和限制，3）主权债务历史上的情况和结构。研究结果将发表在期刊论文和读者中，介绍在这三个方面的框架内处理相关源文件的实证案例研究。本出版物将反映主权债务历史的人类行为学方法的成果，并打算接触更广泛的学术受众。它将适合作为大学一级近现代史教学的教科书。

The planned network will study practices of sovereign debt in historical perspective. It will focus on concrete procedures, situational decisions, and actor relations within politics of debt throughout the long twentieth century, and will put special emphasis on their significance for the negotiation of shifting boundaries between "the state" and "the market." By doing so, it intends to avoid the deterministic view taken in many academic debates so far and to add specific insight into historical connections between financial practices, social knowledge, and economic effects. The network draws on the recently broad praxeological discussion in cultural studies and the social sciences, relating to its sensitivity for informal behaviour, for the materiality of practices, and for the intrinsic logics of actor knowledge. The respective meanings of sovereign debt in the past, and the effects of public debt management since the late 19th century will be situated within moments of decision-making - rather than understanding them as calculable effects of theoretical models or conceptual orders.The interdisciplinary exchange between history, economics and social sciences thus shall enable a more sophisticated study of debt practices that takes their complexity and inconsistency into account. It aims at understanding and explaining the processual character and historical change of everyday (political) handling of public debt.Accordingly, the scheduled meetings will ask for 1) temporalities and caesuras, 2) spaces and limits, and 3) situations and structures in the history of sovereign debt. The results will be published in articles in refereed journals and in a reader that presents empirical case studies dealing with relevant source documents within the framework of these three dimensions. This publication shall reflect the fruitfulness of praxeological methods for the history of sovereign debt and intends to reach a broader academic audience. It will be suitable as a textbook for teaching modern and contemporary history at the university level.