• 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • It is worth exploring more carefully the counterpart of the


    It is worth exploring more carefully the counterpart of the liberal art of government, which found markets and laissez-faire as its principle of truth at the same time it Tozadenant created regulation mechanisms to control the population\'s lives. Inasmuch as the knowledge provided by political economy ascended as a set of political practices, the institution of State remained as a manager of the security apparatuses – as Foucault argued. The issue of security and its apparatuses emerged as a consequence of the liberal art of government, insofar as self-regulating markets demanded the control of the State as a condition to its proper functioning. A practical example that clarifies the social and political consequences of the biopolitical process can be derived from the 19th century Great Irish Famine, when British Tories and Whigs saw that historical fact “as scientifically inevitable and necessary to clear away the surplus Irish population”, and a necessary “mechanism for reducing surplus population” (see O’Boyle, 2006, p. 6). The counterpart of this system is emphasized by Lemke: Moreover, a culture of fear arose: how to avoid that an individual\'s behavior and interest would not become a danger to another individual? Foucault (2008, pp. 65–67) answers this question by asserting that a global risk management, which involved medical institutions (medicine, psychology, psychiatry, sexuality), urban planning, economic planning, economic policies and all kinds of insurances and social security, would prevent that to happen. The exercise of biopolitical practices involves both the institution of State and other non-State institutions related to it.
    Concluding remarks
    Acknowledgement We thank CAPES Foundation (Ministry of Education of Brazil, Brasilia – DF, Brazil) for financial support.
    Introduction Understanding the international role of a currency has major policy implications. Scholars have been discussing the international stance of money in a large spectrum — from the ability to compel other economies (Kirshner, 1997; Andrews, 2006) to the inability to access international markets (Eichengreen et al., 2005; Hausmann and Panizza, 2011). Here, we deal with the currency\'s international role as a unit for setting price in trade, what is usually related to implications on the effectiveness of macroeconomic policies. Currency invoicing is one explanation for the connection between price rigidities and the exchange rate highlighted by Obstfeld and Rogoff (1995) (Betts and Devereux, 1996; Engel and Rogers, 2001; Bacchetta and van Wincoop, 2005). Regarding to Brazil, the exchange rate pass-through to the local economy has already caught some attention (Belaisch, 2003; Correa and Minella, 2010; Nogueira et al., 2013). The same cannot be said about the BRL-invoicing though. The literature gap on the Brazilian currency international use may be explained by the historical fragility of the Brazilian economy, which was seen in numerous currency replacements, mainly in the late 1980s. From 1986 to 1993, Brazil had five different currencies. The BRL adoption in 1994 was a milestone of economic transformations in Brazil that allow the broadening of the country\'s current currency discussions. Moreover, after establishing that the BRL is voluntarily chosen to invoice some trade operations, we take another step in providing a new research agenda to the Brazilian currency and report interesting findings coming up from Brazilian data, surveying some current topics in currency invoicing. We notice that the government provision of a financial instrument — the SML — impacted the invoice currency usage. Setting up this link enhances the importance of assessing the BRL invoicing standards and confirms our claim that, although limited, the role played by the BRL in the international stage can contribute to answers a large set of questions. In addition, we find that being a homogeneous good is not sufficient to make food chain to be invoiced in an international currency, as sugar and tobacco are the products the most exported in BRL. This contradicts usual expectation that homogeneous products in the international market being traded in commodity exchanges are expected to be invoiced on an international currency (McKinnon, 1979; Krugman, 1980) and points toward the occurrence of some bargaining power in invoicing (Friberg and Wilander, 2008; Ito et al., 2012; Goldberg and Tille, 2013). We also find that in the Brazilian case the currency chosen to invoice is not the same one chosen for paying, as it has been consistently reported in the literature (Friberg and Wilander, 2008; Ito et al., 2013; Zhang, 2014).