The Intellectual Foundations of the Global Financial Crisis: Analysis and Proposals for Reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much has been written about the current crisis in the global financial system, and many thoughtful analyses have examined the causes and consequences of that crisis. This paper joins those analyses that argue that the crisis reveals flaws in the theoretical underpinnings of capital market regulation, particularly in those markets that had relied upon the assumptions of ‘market fundamentalism’ as a regulatory philosophy. We suggest a more Northern European approach to market regulation better accommodates the social values necessary to ensure stable, equitable economies. In these approaches, economic actors make decisions after having consulted relevant stakeholders. By taking this view, we challenge the tendency in Anglo-American regulatory theory to rely on the self-interest of market participants as an adequate substitute for external constraints on risk-creating activity, and we challenge the perspective that suggests that the financial system can be thought of as properly separate from social values and considerations. In various Northern European countries corporate governance systems have been developed in which the management has legal requirements to interact with various stakeholder groups, enabling broader social values than shareholder wealth maximizing to be considered within the market sphere. We argue that these systems offer inspiration for market reform. In making this argument we do not idealise the legal systems of these countries, which also have their weaknesses. Our argument is that there are aspects of Northern European stakeholder governance, specifically Dutch corporate governance, that represent means by which the law can be used to allow markets to better incorporate social values. We conclude with a number of policy suggestions for incorporating such corporate governance values into capital market regulation.
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 | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".