This article argues that a nexus exists between private profit-orienteded actors (privateers and hedge funds) — being only lightly regulated by their home countries (Britain and America) — and ‘offshore’ territories located in the Caribbean and elsewhere in the Anglo-Saxon world. This article argues that the ultimate reason for this nexus is the common ‘Lockean’ state/society complex of the UK and the US. The analysis of hedge funds as privateers reveals that both benefit at the expense of others, while the geographic regions in which they are based are virtually the same — London and New York/Boston. Furthermore, this article shows that the hedge fund ‘value chain’ is clearly dominated by the US and the UK. Most hedge funds are based in Offshore Financial Centres (OFCs). While this is commonplace, by introducing the OFC-Intensity Ratio we show that the most intensive OFCs are under the sovereignty of the US and the UK.
DeneaultA.2010. Offshore: Tax Havens and the Rule of Crime.New York: New Press.
9.
DyrengS.LindseyB. & ThornockJ.2012. Exploring the role Delaware plays as a tax haven. Centre for Business Taxation Working Paper WP 12/12, Oxford University.
10.
ErtürkI.LeaverA. & WilliamsK.2010. Hedge funds as ‘war machine’: Making the positions work. New Political Economy, 15(1): 9–28.
LackS.2010. The Hedge Fund Mirage.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
22.
LunsfordV.2005. Piracy and Privateering in the Golden Age Netherlands.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
23.
MabeeB.2009. Pirates, privateers and the political economy of private violence. Global Change, Peace & Security, 21(2): 139–52.
24.
MallabyS.2007. Hands off hedge funds. Foreign Affairs, 86(1): 91–101.
25.
PalanR.1998. Trying to have your cake and eat it: How and why the state system has created offshore. International Studies Quarterly, 42(4): 625–43.
26.
PalanR.2002. Tax havens and the commercialization of state sovereignty. International Organization, 56(1): 151–76.
27.
PalanR.MurphyR. & ChavagneuxC.2010. Tax Havens: How Globalization Really Works.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
28.
PicciottoS.1999. Offshore: The state as legal fiction. In: HamptonM. & AbbottJ., eds. Offshore Finance Centres and Tax Havens: The Rise of Global Capital.West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 43–79.
29.
van der PijlK.. 1998. Transnational Classes and International Relations.London: Routledge.
30.
van der PijlK.. 2006. Global Rivalries: From the Cold War to Iraq.London: Pluto Press.
31.
van der PijlK.. 2012. Is the East still red? The contender state and class struggles in China. Globalizations, 9(4): 503–16.
32.
PinkerS.2011. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.New York: Penguin.
33.
RabanP.1989. Channel Island Ppivateering, 1739–1763. International Journal of Maritime History, 1(2): 287–99.
RixenT.2013. Why reregulation after the crisis is feeble: Shadow banking, offshore financial centres, and jurisdictional competition. Regulation & Governance, 7(4): 435–459.
36.
RobinsN.2006. The Corporation that Changed the World: How the East India Company Shaped the Modern Multinational.London: Pluto Press.
37.
StarkeyD.1988. The economic and military significance of British privateering, 1702–83. Journal of Transport History, 9(1): 50–59.
38.
StarkeyD.1990. British Privateering Enterprise in the Eighteenth Century.Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
39.
StarkeyD.2001. The origins and regulation of eighteenth-century British privateering. In: PenellC. R., ed. Bandits at Sea: A Pirates Reader.New York: NYU Press.
40.
SwansonC.1985. American privateering and imperial warfare, 1739–1748. William and Mary Quarterly, 42(3): 357–82.
41.
SwansonC.1989. Privateering in early America. International Journal of Maritime History, 1(2): 253–78.
ThomsonJ.1994. Mercenaries, Pirates, and Sovereigns: State-building and Extraterritorial Violence in Early Modern Europe.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
44.
ZoroméA.2007. Concept of Offshore Financial Centres: In Search of an Operational Definition. IMF Working Paper WP/07/87. Washington, DC: IMF.
