Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book addresses the question of how to build more responsive and responsible financial regulators in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. It provides a insightful and critical analysis of the accountability of key financial regulators in the European Union, the United States of America and Canada, in the post-crisis institutional setting. The book shows that whereas the regulatory overhaul that followed the crisis has generally encompassed a move towards a greater responsiveness of financial regulators, the financial architectures of the post-crisis institutional setting still face important challenges. The challenges that lie ahead are not of a pure architectural or technical nature; they are closely related to fundamental issues of democratic legitimacy and the rule of law. The financial crisis has shown that financial regulators are powerful actors who have a vital role to play in the global society of the 21th century. They only can effectively contribute to the efficiency and the stability of the financial markets if they are able to fulfil their supervisory and regulatory tasks independent from the one-sided interests of financial enterprises as well as the erratic whims of daily party politics. On the other hand financial regulators should not be isolated from society. They have to give an account on the fulfilling of their mandate to the government, the parliament as well as to the society at large. Experience shows that these vital principles – independence and accountability – are in practice not always easy to reconcile. This book incisively re-examines the concepts of accountability and independence as the indispensable pillars of the governance of the modern financial regulators. It strongly underlines that the accountability, the independence and, more generally, the good governance of financial regulators, constitute necessary conditions for both the efficiency and legitimacy of the financial regulatory and supervisory functions. A proper accountability framework contributes to the creation, monitoring and enforcement of rules that enhance the soundness of the financial markets, financial stability, investor protection and, ultimately, social development. An important additional value of the book is that its scope is not limited to the European Union and its member states. It also includes the role of financial regulators in leading western countries like the United States and Canada where the economic circumstances partly seem different from what is at stake in the European Union.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.538 | 0.465 |
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".