Who Governs Finance? The Shifting Public–Private Divide in the Regulation of Derivatives, Rating Agencies and Hedge Funds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The division of responsibilities in the regulation and supervision of financial markets between ‘public’ regulatory agencies and ‘private’ market actors is not fixed; it has radically changed across time. This paper argues that the financial crisis of 2007–2009 has triggered the latest turn in the ‘public–private’ divide in the regulation of finance. Focusing in particular on the extensive reforms that have been introduced in the regulation of over‐the‐counter derivatives, credit rating agencies and hedge funds in Europe and internationally, this paper argues that the response to the financial crisis has brought to a halt the reliance on self‐regulation and market discipline as primary regulatory mechanisms that had characterised the approach of regulators prior to the crisis. However, while public regulatory agencies have consolidated in their hands the authority to regulate and oversee markets previously left outside their regulatory oversight, the content and the purpose of their regulatory intervention continue to present significant element of continuity with the pre‐crisis regulatory model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".