What finance wants: explaining change in private regulatory preferences toward sovereign debt restructuring
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
It is widely assumed that when private financial actors seek to influence the regulation of global finance, their preference is for fewer or weaker rules. But is this preference tied to fixed material interests, or is it more malleable? Can it change over time? If so, why might it? I address these questions by examining a recent shift in private creditor preferences toward the regulation of sovereign debt restructuring. I argue that changed material circumstances created demand for regulatory change among creditors but did not determine the nature of their preferred solution. Instead, it was shifts in collectively-held ideas—the specific content of which was informed by important historical and contextual factors—that led private creditors to embrace stronger debt restructuring rules, despite being historically opposed to such rules. In making this argument, the article contributes to a fuller understanding of private market actors in global financial politics, challenging the assumption that these actors necessarily prefer weaker rules, and highlighting the more contingent nature of their regulatory preferences. It also contributes to wider debates about preference formation and change, highlighting important complementarities between distinct theoretical traditions, which together provide a much richer explanation of the case at hand.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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