Governance of payment systems: a theoretical framework and cross-country comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We develop and test the effectiveness of a theoretical governance model for general-purpose payment systems (GPPSs), systems that are used by individuals, businesses and merchants, as well as state, local and federal government entities, to make and receive payments. The model has characteristics found in the governance of large technical systems, whose complexity calls for local operational management and direction, and groups of operationally dissimilar organizations that must cooperate closely to form a network. Five reference countries and the single-currency euro area are placed into one of two groups based on the degree to which their GPPS governance aligns with the model. We test for effective governance across the six reference entities using measures that are based on evolving regulatory norms. We find that payment system governance in Australia, the euro area and the United Kingdom aligns with the theoretical model, and that their governance is effective. Payment system governance in Japan, Canada and the United States does not align with the theoretical model and is shown not to be effective according to the measures. Our findings indicate that government authorities are being increasingly called on to set and oversee the accomplishment of public policy objectives, and that their involvement is consistent with effective governance. We conclude that the theoretical governance model, while not necessarily normative, is strongly consistent with the evolving regulatory norms of effective payment system governance.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".