Derived from her PhD dissertation, this book seems designed for an academic audience. The Introduction can be painful, as it sets the intellectual context, demonstrates a command of theory, justifies research choices, and makes a case for relevance to the policy world. Subsequent chapters are more accessible and interesting. See the opening paragraph of Chap. 6, pp 249-50, for a clear, succinct statement of her agenda and conclusions.
How could this book - for the public now, no longer a dissertation - have been made more accessible? In the Introduction eliminate jargon and shorten sentences (stop addressing all imagined contingencies in a single sentence); eliminate all but key citations. Shorten the rest of the book by giving less exhaustive detail.
P. 296 summarizes one of her key findings: "Wall Street's rise to dominance - through its smartness, its use of history and shareholder value ideology, its 'own' experiences of downsizing as empowerment - has allowed it to project a local model of employee liquidity and financial instability onto corporate America and the financial markets at large, generating globalizing economic crises." The author develops this "local model" through "analyses of bankers' dispositions and organizational culture," based on research on Wall Street (mostly among low- and some mid-level professionals and managers).
This research is impressive, especially its case examples. Yet projecting that local model "onto corporate America and the financial markets" is harder to assess, and will be challenged: (1) By those who do not accept her purported linkages between (a) micro (employee) behaviors and sub-cultures, and (b) the larger course of economic and financial events. Rephrased, that the recruitment, socialization, and employment practices described cannot be so readily linked as causes to macro outcomes. (2) By critics who do not accept her macro (overview) analysis of the financial industry and its role in historical events.
I described this book's description of recruitment practices (from elite universities) to friends exprienced with CULTS. To them it sounded like the workings of a cult: firms pampering and flattering prospective hires, and assuring recruits that they can sustain the same elite associations and friendships after graduation. "Don't worry about going out into the humdrum, mediocre world. Our firm will help bring Princeton (etc.) with you." Ho seems at least implicitly to appreciate this view, but I would have expected an anthropologist to be more explicit.