The Limits of Incrementalism: The G20, the FSB, and the International Regulatory Agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At their very first summit in Washington in November 2008, the G20 \nleaders placed the reform of international financial regulation at the core of their \nagenda. The issue has retained a central place in discussions and communiqués at \nevery subsequent meeting. It has been remarkable to see heads of state commit \nsuch detailed attention in their communiqués to a topic which has historically \nbeen the more obscure preserve of technocratic officials. Equally striking has \nbeen the fact that policymakers have looked beyond the immediate task of \nmanaging the crisis to focus on this more forward-looking agenda to prevent \nfuture crises. It took more than a decade after the crisis of the early 1930s for \npolitical leaders to agree at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference on international \nfinancial reforms designed to prevent a repetition of that economic calamity. This \ntime around, the crisis has been used as an immediate catalyst for reform. \nBut what have the G20 leaders actually accomplished so far in this field? \nThere is no question that they have successfully negotiated more initiatives in this \narea than in any other, initiatives that are aimed at reforming both the content and \nthe governance of international financial regulation. While the breadth of these \nreforms has been impressive, they also suffer from some important limitations. \nDespite the scale of the crisis, the reforms have been much more incremental than \nradical. Their implementation has also been slow and uneven, and some important \nissues have been neglected entirely. As we have entered a new phase of financial \ninstability unleashed by the eurozone’s difficulties, these limitations have become \nincreasingly evident, with political consequences that are very difficult to predict.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".