This dissertation explores how the US government identifies and responds to the problem of illicit finance, specifically, why the US Treasury utilizes certain approaches over others. I employ a comparative case study of three relatively recent, non-traditional approaches in the Treasury’s anti-illicit finance repertoire: targeted financial sanctions (a case of strong policy action), anti-money laundering in real estate (a case of tentative policy action), and the proposed demonetization of high denomination notes (a case of policy inaction). While considering a wide range of plausible explanations for this variation in policy action, I argue that the Treasury’s decision to either pursue, postpone or reject a given approach is largely a function of the policy narrative surrounding that approach.
I find that the Treasury is more likely to pursue an anti-illicit finance approach when the relevant policy entrepreneurs have successfully invoked the nationalist narrative canon of “American Exceptionalism,” “The American Dream,” and/or “American Civil Religion.” Methodologically, I rely on the recent Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) literature, which emphasizes the importance of narrative elements – setting, plot, characters (i.e., heroes and villains), and moral – in the marketing of policy ideas. The most attractive policy approaches are those that resonate with nationalistic metanarratives and, to the extent possible, cast the villain in the story as foreign and other.
","abstract_html":"<p>This dissertation explores how the US government identifies and responds to the problem of illicit finance, specifically, why the US Treasury utilizes certain approaches over others. I employ a comparative case study of three relatively recent, non-traditional approaches in the Treasury’s anti-illicit finance repertoire: targeted financial sanctions (a case of <em>strong</em> policy action), anti-money laundering in real estate (a case of <em>tentative</em> policy action), and the proposed demonetization of high denomination notes (a case of policy <em>in</em>action). While considering a wide range of plausible explanations for this variation in policy action, I argue that the Treasury’s decision to either pursue, postpone or reject a given approach is largely a function of the <em>policy narrative</em> surrounding that approach.</p> <p>I find that the Treasury is more likely to pursue an anti-illicit finance approach when the relevant policy entrepreneurs have successfully invoked the <em>nationalist narrative canon</em> of “American Exceptionalism,” “The American Dream,” and/or “American Civil Religion.” Methodologically, I rely on the recent Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) literature, which emphasizes the importance of narrative elements – setting, plot, characters (i.e., heroes and villains), and moral – in the marketing of policy ideas. The most attractive policy approaches are those that resonate with nationalistic metanarratives and, to the extent possible, cast the villain in the story as foreign and <em>other</em>.</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Kemp, Paul Christopher"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Rachel Epstein","Ilene Grabel","Debbi Avant","Thomas Nail"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2023,"date_issued":"2023-08-01T07:00:00Z","date_published":"2023-08-01T07:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:01:39Z","subjects":["Illicit finance","United States Treasury","Sanctions","Money laundering","Demonetization","Narrative","Metanarrative","American Politics","Economic Policy","International Relations","Political Science","Social and Behavioral Sciences"],"languages":["English (eng)"],"rights":["Copyright is held by the author. User is responsible for all copyright compliance.
"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/2296","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Rachel Epstein","Ilene Grabel","Debbi Avant","Thomas Nail"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Kemp, Paul Christopher"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Illicit finance","United States Treasury","Sanctions","Money laundering","Demonetization","Narrative","Metanarrative","American Politics","Economic Policy","International Relations","Political Science","Social and Behavioral Sciences"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["English (eng)"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright is held by the author. User is responsible for all copyright compliance.
"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/2296"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["This dissertation explores how the US government identifies and responds to the problem of illicit finance, specifically, why the US Treasury utilizes certain approaches over others. I employ a comparative case study of three relatively recent, non-traditional approaches in the Treasury’s anti-illicit finance repertoire: targeted financial sanctions (a case of strong policy action), anti-money laundering in real estate (a case of tentative policy action), and the proposed demonetization of high denomination notes (a case of policy inaction). While considering a wide range of plausible explanations for this variation in policy action, I argue that the Treasury’s decision to either pursue, postpone or reject a given approach is largely a function of the policy narrative surrounding that approach.
I find that the Treasury is more likely to pursue an anti-illicit finance approach when the relevant policy entrepreneurs have successfully invoked the nationalist narrative canon of “American Exceptionalism,” “The American Dream,” and/or “American Civil Religion.” Methodologically, I rely on the recent Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) literature, which emphasizes the importance of narrative elements – setting, plot, characters (i.e., heroes and villains), and moral – in the marketing of policy ideas. The most attractive policy approaches are those that resonate with nationalistic metanarratives and, to the extent possible, cast the villain in the story as foreign and other.
"]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["The Treasury of Stories: Policy Narratives of Anti-Illicit Finance"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Rachel Epstein","Ilene Grabel","Debbi Avant","Thomas Nail"],"dc:creator":["Kemp, Paul Christopher"],"dc:description.abstract":["This dissertation explores how the US government identifies and responds to the problem of illicit finance, specifically, why the US Treasury utilizes certain approaches over others. I employ a comparative case study of three relatively recent, non-traditional approaches in the Treasury’s anti-illicit finance repertoire: targeted financial sanctions (a case of strong policy action), anti-money laundering in real estate (a case of tentative policy action), and the proposed demonetization of high denomination notes (a case of policy inaction). While considering a wide range of plausible explanations for this variation in policy action, I argue that the Treasury’s decision to either pursue, postpone or reject a given approach is largely a function of the policy narrative surrounding that approach.
I find that the Treasury is more likely to pursue an anti-illicit finance approach when the relevant policy entrepreneurs have successfully invoked the nationalist narrative canon of “American Exceptionalism,” “The American Dream,” and/or “American Civil Religion.” Methodologically, I rely on the recent Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) literature, which emphasizes the importance of narrative elements – setting, plot, characters (i.e., heroes and villains), and moral – in the marketing of policy ideas. The most attractive policy approaches are those that resonate with nationalistic metanarratives and, to the extent possible, cast the villain in the story as foreign and other.
"],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/2296"],"dc:language":["English (eng)"],"dc:rights":["Copyright is held by the author. User is responsible for all copyright compliance.
"],"dc:subject":["Illicit finance","United States Treasury","Sanctions","Money laundering","Demonetization","Narrative","Metanarrative","American Politics","Economic Policy","International Relations","Political Science","Social and Behavioral Sciences"],"dc:title":["The Treasury of Stories: Policy Narratives of Anti-Illicit Finance"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:01:39Z"}