What Role for the New Financial Stability Board? The Politics of International Standards after the Crisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Created in April 2009, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) represents the G20 leaders’ first major international institutional innovation. Why was it established and what role will it play in global economic governance? The creation of the FSB has been linked to a US‐led effort to strengthen an international prudential standards regime that had evolved in the years leading up to the 2007–08 global financial crisis. The FSB faces a number of serious challenges in its new role: developing effective mechanisms for monitoring and encouraging compliance; promoting the development of effective international standards and fostering consensus on their content; establishing its legitimacy vis‐à‐vis non‐members and within member countries; and clarifying its relationship with other global governance institutions. Since these are very difficult tasks, the FSB may be forced to assume a less ambitious role in international regulatory politics than some of its creators initially envisioned. Policy Implications The creation of the FSB is part of an ambitious effort to strengthen international prudential standards in response to the recent global financial crisis. The FSB faces many challenges: developing effective mechanisms for monitoring and encouraging compliance; promoting the development of effective international standards and fostering consensus on their content; establishing its legitimacy vis‐à‐vis non‐members and within member countries; and clarifying its relationship with other global governance institutions. If these challenges prove too daunting, the FSB can still play an important, though less ambitious, role of fostering international cooperation to support a more pluralistic and decentralized international regulatory order.
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 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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.
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".