Responses to global financial standards in emerging markets: Regulatory neoliberalism and the Basel<scp>II</scp>Capital Accord
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper examines the diffusion of the Basel II Capital Accord into emerging markets (EMs). The literature on the diffusion of financial standards reinforces determinism: carefully derived standards such as those around financial liberalization are assumed to be applicable to all markets in an effort to promote stability and international harmonization. Attempts to use financial liberalization and macroprudential toolkits such as Basel II, however well intentioned, can increase rather than mitigate financial instability, due in part to unevenness in the adoption of financial standards. We analyse rich, action research data on the response of banks in 19 EMs in Asia, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe to the advent of Basel II. We find heterogeneous rather than universalistic responses, captured as four types of behavioural variations leading to differences in the intensity of diffusion: Reformist, Instigative, Disobliging and Cosmetic. The variations reflect regulatory neoliberalism. The typology contributes to our understanding of the interaction between bank behaviour, regulator stance and institutional context as determinants of the diffusion of global financial standards.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".