The faces of liberal capitalism: Anglo-Saxon banking systems in crisis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent financial crisis has severely shaken confidence in the conventional wisdom of economic liberalism, giving rise to debate about the appropriate direction of theory and policy. In this context, the sharply divergent experiences of the four main Anglo-Saxon banking systems suggest that the crisis may not so much be one of liberal capitalism per se as it is of the neoclassical variety that characterises the British and American systems. Whereas these banking systems were very badly affected by the crisis, the Canadian and Australian systems were not. Our analysis suggests that this can be explained by differences in the way that economic liberalism was interpreted and translated into policy in the four countries during the period preceding the crisis. It also suggests that broad classifications of national business systems into 'liberal market' and other varieties of capitalism do not capture their inherent diversity, and that financial market liberalisation does not necessarily lead to instability, particularly when it is accompanied by appropriate supervision and prudential regulation. Copyright The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved., Oxford University Press.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".