Really great excavation of the concept in a North American context. If we accept "derisking" in its widest sense, it has been a common feature of multiple developmental projects, with an extensive gray area in terms of the degree of autonomy and control afforded to governments vs. private sector. For instance, in rural development projects of the 1960s and 1970s, it was understood that the role of the World Bank was removing risk from the equation for smallholders, which could be understood as simple underwriting of loans, but also as the wider provisioning of infrastructures as public goods (banking, but also irrigation, electricity, etc.). I would thus argue and agree that derisking is an open, rather than closed, concept.
This pairs very well with Clara Mattei’s recent book “the capital order”... the interwar period is fascinating to study
Really great excavation of the concept in a North American context. If we accept "derisking" in its widest sense, it has been a common feature of multiple developmental projects, with an extensive gray area in terms of the degree of autonomy and control afforded to governments vs. private sector. For instance, in rural development projects of the 1960s and 1970s, it was understood that the role of the World Bank was removing risk from the equation for smallholders, which could be understood as simple underwriting of loans, but also as the wider provisioning of infrastructures as public goods (banking, but also irrigation, electricity, etc.). I would thus argue and agree that derisking is an open, rather than closed, concept.