Leonard Seabrooke argue that elite actors have a greater capacity to manipulate the broader population into viewing a certain order of things as legitimate and as the 'common sense'5 1sn6n Such a perspective explains how elites operate within the international political economy,but,unintentionally,tends to diminish the agency of non-elite actors N to shape change beyond organised resistance.Similarly,we could take the Constructivist route,but then we may end up in a similar position whereby non-elites actors have little capacity to change their environment against the persuasions of norm entrepreneurs.8 An alternative is to focus on the legitimation of relations between the state and non-elites as a 'two-way street'that is important to a state's financial power.From this view,legitimation extends beyond the ballot box and can be found in everyday practices as well as organised collective resistance and advocacy.This view would also emphasise differences in legitimacy claims made by a state to effect policy change and how non-elites alter economic and social conventions in line with how they think the economy should work.0 While the focus on legitimacy 益 in the past has been on 'deficits'between those governing and those governed during a period that could be understood as a crisis,the implementation of poli- cies forged in crisis is tested in how they affect conventions in everyday life.For this article,exploring how non-elites'changing conventions and expectations are encouraged or hindered by different kinds of financial institutions and instruments may reveal the domestic bases of different kinds of international financial orders This article explores the domestic bases of English imperialism in global finance in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,and US hegemony in global finance in the late twentieth century-the last two periods of intensive financial globalisation.3 It does so through a focus on policies that have a strong impact on everyday life,such as property,credit and tax -what I call the 'financial reform nexus'-for people on below median income (I use the shorthand 'LIGs' for people in lower-income groupings).How the state treats LIGs provides insight into its capacity to recycle and build a deep pool of domestic capital and,from this capacity,influence the international financial order.I argue that this is especially the case for people in what we would commonly understand as the 'middle classes'and 'lower-middle classes',rather than very low-income individuals associated with 'the poor'.14This is warranted given that LIGs who perceive them- selves as 'nearly there'in terms of their access to credit and property,or their rela- tive tax burdens,can provide the state with either a powerful financial resource,or a mass of political,economic,and social frustration.As we will see,the legiti- mation of a financial reform nexus is directly related to whether a state's inter- national financial capacity has an 'imperialist'or 'hegemonic'character, including the ability to switch between the two through what I call a 'rentier shift'. The article is structured as follows.First,I discuss everyday legitimacy and social mechanisms of change.Second,I discuss the English case,s breaking down the financial reform nexus into its credit,tax and property dimensions before relating them to imperialist behaviour in the 'international rentier economy'.Third,I discuss the US case,tracing the tax,property and credit poli- tics of the financial reform nexus before arriving at US hegemonic influence in the 'international creditor economy'.Fourth,I conclude by briefly reflecting on whether the USA between 2000 and the present has been going through a 2Downloaded By: [University of Sydney] At: 02:46 7 August 2007 argue that elite actors have a greater capacity to manipulate the broader population into viewing a certain order of things as legitimate and as the ‘common sense’.5 Such a perspective explains how elites operate within the international political economy, but, unintentionally, tends to diminish the agency of non-elite actors to shape change beyond organised resistance.6 Similarly, we could take the Constructivist route,7 but then we may end up in a similar position whereby non-elites actors have little capacity to change their environment against the persuasions of norm entrepreneurs.8 An alternative is to focus on the legitimation of relations between the state and non-elites as a ‘two-way street’ that is important to a state’s financial power. From this view, legitimation extends beyond the ballot box and can be found in everyday practices as well as organised collective resistance and advocacy.9 This view would also emphasise differences in legitimacy claims made by a state to effect policy change and how non-elites alter economic and social conventions in line with how they think the economy should work.10 While the focus on legitimacy in the past has been on ‘deficits’ between those governing and those governed during a period that could be understood as a crisis,11 the implementation of poli￾cies forged in crisis is tested in how they affect conventions in everyday life.12 For this article, exploring how non-elites’ changing conventions and expectations are encouraged or hindered by different kinds of financial institutions and instruments may reveal the domestic bases of different kinds of international financial orders. This article explores the domestic bases of English imperialism in global finance in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and US hegemony in global finance in the late twentieth century – the last two periods of intensive financial globalisation.13 It does so through a focus on policies that have a strong impact on everyday life, such as property, credit and tax – what I call the ‘financial reform nexus’ – for people on below median income (I use the shorthand ‘LIGs’ for people in lower-income groupings). How the state treats LIGs provides insight into its capacity to recycle and build a deep pool of domestic capital and, from this capacity, influence the international financial order. I argue that this is especially the case for people in what we would commonly understand as the ‘middle classes’ and ‘lower-middle classes’, rather than very low-income individuals associated with ‘the poor’.14 This is warranted given that LIGs who perceive them￾selves as ‘nearly there’ in terms of their access to credit and property, or their rela￾tive tax burdens, can provide the state with either a powerful financial resource, or a mass of political, economic, and social frustration. As we will see, the legiti￾mation of a financial reform nexus is directly related to whether a state’s inter￾national financial capacity has an ‘imperialist’ or ‘hegemonic’ character, including the ability to switch between the two through what I call a ‘rentier shift’. The article is structured as follows. First, I discuss everyday legitimacy and social mechanisms of change. Second, I discuss the English case,15 breaking down the financial reform nexus into its credit, tax and property dimensions before relating them to imperialist behaviour in the ‘international rentier economy’.16 Third, I discuss the US case, tracing the tax, property and credit poli￾tics of the financial reform nexus before arriving at US hegemonic influence in the ‘international creditor economy’. Fourth, I conclude by briefly reflecting on whether the USA between 2000 and the present has been going through a Leonard Seabrooke 2