The 'Santiago Principles' for Sovereign Wealth Funds: A Case Study on International Financial Standard-Setting Processes
This article considers the subject of 'multi-level governance' respecting ' "regulatory" financial standard-setting' through the lens of the 2008 'Santiago Principles' and 2009 establishment of the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds. Upon a US initiative, the matter fell on to the policy plate of the G-20 Finance Ministers and was then translated into 'administrative marching orders' for the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and World Bank to work with the major sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) and others in devising a set of 'best practices'. What transpired has been a sui generis, ad hoc, 'multi-level, rule-oriented governance network process'. The immediate 'deliverable' has been a set of 'international best practices' (Santiago Principles). The related International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds encapsulates a new ongoing 'institutional', 'administrative', and 'qualified self-regulatory' process for implementing, interpreting, revising, adjusting, monitoring, and assessing these Principles and for further fostering their global acceptance as part of the post-global-financial-crisis 'international architecture'. These developments add a new component to the global capital markets and to the proliferation of 'global administrative networks' and related 'soft law regulation' in the area of international economic financial law. Tangentially, this SWF phenomenon raises the question of the interconnected roles of the IMF, OECD, World Bank, United Nations, International Labour Organization and World Trade Organization, along with the related-linked 'soft law, regulatory network(s)', in the 'new international financial architecture'. Oxford University Press 2010, all rights reserved, Oxford University Press.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 13 (2010)
Issue (Month): 3 (September)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page: http://www.jiel.oupjournals.org/
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.oup.co.uk/journals|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:13:y:2010:i:3:p:645-662. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.