MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1501055903

Banking on Cooperation: The Role of the G-20 in Improving the International Financial Architecture

2012· article· en· W1501055903 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arie C. Eernisse

Bibliographic record

VenueDuke journal of comparative & international law · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal Financial Regulation and Crises
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandateCorporate governanceArchitectureFinancial crisisFinancial regulationGlobal governanceFinancePolitical scienceBusinessEconomicsPublic administrationLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION Largely dormant in its first decade of existence, the Group of Twenty (G-20) in 2008 began to play an instrumental role in coordinating a global effort to adopt measures for the prevention of future economic crises. (1) U.S. President Barack Obama (2) and other world leaders (3) have declared that the G-20 is the new premier forum for international economic coordination, effectively replacing the Group of Eight (G-8). (4) Commentators have hailed the landmark achievements of the recent G-20 summits (5) and have said that the G-20 is without question the new game in town in respect of global governance. (6) Since assuming its more powerful role, the G-20 has articulated specific policy objectives, set deadlines for progress, and monitored the work of the main international financial regulatory bodies, especially the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). (7) Meanwhile, member countries have begun implementing internationally consistent reforms at the domestic level. In the aftermath of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, the G-20 must continue to assert its leadership of the reform effort or risk squandering the gains it has made thus far. (8) With many financial regulatory challenges still ahead, now is an appropriate time to gauge the G-20's successes and failures and to assess its ability to accomplish its mandate of strengthening the international financial architecture and preventing future regulatory lapses. (9) Part I of this note will explore the interaction among the G-20, FSB, BCBS, and other international financial regulators, as well as evaluate the G-20's efforts to construct a coherent framework for financial reform. Part II will analyze the hard soft law nature (10) of G-20 declarations and argue that the G-20's current layered policymaking structure is preferable to alternative structures for international financial regulation. Part III will delve into more detail with regard to two key reforms--the adoption of a new capital and liquidity framework and the regulation of systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs)--and contend that these reforms, despite their flaws, are key examples of the G-20's ability to achieve success. I. THE G-20'S FRAMEWORK FOR FINANCIAL REFORM The politically powerful G-20 has marshaled the technical expertise of the FSB and BCBS to establish a framework for financial reform that stresses four approaches: (1) strong regulatory controls, (2) effective supervision, (3) enhanced methods for addressing resolution and systemic institutions, and (4) transparent international assessment and peer review. A. Origins of the G-20, FSB, and BCBS In the late 1990s, the Asian Financial Crisis exposed fissures in the international financial architecture that had uniquely harmed capital-absorbing Asian countries. (11) The G-7 formed the G-20 in an effort to give voice to a more diverse array of countries in high-level discussions on key economic and financial policies. (12) For the first decade of the G-20's existence, the G-20 was merely a forum for finance ministers and central bankers, (13) but when the Global Financial Crisis suddenly deepened in 2008, the G-20 transformed into a forum for heads of state to meet regularly and discuss pressing economic and financial issues. (14) Global leaders attended summits at Washington, D.C., in November 2008, London in April 2009, Pittsburgh in September 2009, Toronto in June 2010, Seoul in November 2010, and Paris in November 2011. (15) The G-20 had two main objectives: reignite the economic system through bailouts and stimulus packages and improve the regulation of global financial markets. (16) In the late 1990s, the G-7 also created the Financial Stability Forum (FSF), an inter-governmental body whose original mandate was to improve financial sector surveillance and foster stability in the international financial system. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.016
Scholarly communication0.0150.010
Open science0.0010.013
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDuke journal of comparative & international law→Same topicGlobal Financial Regulation and Crises→French-language works237,207→