Limits to the BRICS’ challenge: credit rating reform and institutional innovation in global finance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although many scholars have analyzed the BRICS’ creation of the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), less attention has been paid to other – less successful – BRICS efforts to challenge the dominant global financial order through institutional innovation. This paper examines the case of BRICS’ discussions to create their own credit rating agency (CrRA) which began in 2012 around the same time as the initiatives to establish the NDB and CRA. These discussions have been driven by discontent with US-based CrRAs which act as key authorities in global finance, but BRICS institutional innovation has been slower to emerge than in the NDB and CRA cases because the BRICS have shared less of a common social purpose on this issue. Even if a BRICS CrRA was created, this institution would be very unlikely to challenge the dominant order any time soon because of the enduring structural power of US and its CrRAs in this sector. The case shows how a wider case selection than the NDB and CRA reveals that the BRICS’ capacity to transform the global financial order through collective institutional innovation is dependent on specific conditions: the strength of their common social purpose and the degree of the structural power of established authorities.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".