Dynamics and Limits of Regulatory Privatization: Reorganizing audit oversight in Russia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accounting and auditing are often cited as key sites where business regulation has been privatized, globalized and neoliberalized. Yet, these sites have also undergone a legitimacy crisis in recent years, marked by a shift from self-regulation to increased public oversight. This paper investigates these developments by reference to the evolution of a public/private audit oversight regime (audit of the auditors) in Russia. We show how, in the early stages of post-Soviet reforms, old state-administered forms of financial oversight were replaced with market-oriented arrangements (peer reviews) offered by newly founded private professional accountancy associations as a service to their members. Fifteen years later, the process of regulatory privatization culminated in a reinvigoration of public authority. Our longitudinal analysis highlights the pivotal role of the state in the liberalization of governance by showing how audit oversight privatization was not only enabled by, but also provided a condition for, the strengthening of government actors. We introduce the term ‘legislative layering’ to denote the mechanism that enabled public actors to redeploy themselves in the face of the rising market logic to ensure continuity in their regulatory objectives.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it