IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/polsoc/v42y2014i2p194-222.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Flaws of Fragmented Financial Standard Setting

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Mügge

    (Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research, University of Amsterdam)

  • James Perry

    (Copenhagen Business School)

Abstract

In the half decade following the 2007 financial crisis, the reform of global financial governance was driven by two separate policy debates: one on the substantive content of regulations, the other on the organizational architecture of their governance. The separation of the two debates among policymakers has been mirrored in academia, where postcrisis analyses of financial governance have remained detached from reinvigorated discussions about the nature of financial markets. We argue that this separation is deeply flawed. Presenting an analysis of interactions between standards for banking, credit rating, accounting, and derivatives trading, this article demonstrates why the appropriateness of the organizational architecture of global financial governance is necessarily contingent upon one’s understanding of how financial markets work. In particular, if financial markets are not anchored to external “economic fundamentals†but instead exhibit reflexivity, then the reciprocal interactions between different regulatory arenas demand considerably more organizational coordination than presently exists.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Mügge & James Perry, 2014. "The Flaws of Fragmented Financial Standard Setting," Politics & Society, , vol. 42(2), pages 194-222, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:polsoc:v:42:y:2014:i:2:p:194-222
    DOI: 10.1177/0032329213519420
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0032329213519420
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0032329213519420?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:polsoc:v:42:y:2014:i:2:p:194-222. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.