Introduction: The international political economy of green finance
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
From IPCC reports to global asset managers and governments, calls for more green finance to fuel the sustainability transition are ubiquitous. Concurrently, the critiques of a benign embrace of financial techniques, products, and flows as solutions to the climate crisis are growing louder. As a field of inquiry, IPE has the right tools to address such controversies productively. Yet, we diagnose a lack of what we call a deep engagement of IPE with epistemic and practical questions of what green finance is, how it operates, and its outcomes. The ambition of this special issue is to develop a research agenda that examines the contemporary global and concrete forms of green finance and its governance in order to better understand the following dynamics: first, how political and economic power relations within global finance shape environmental governance outcomes, and second, how the climate crisis itself influences the governance of global finance. To facilitate such thinking, we propose to understand green finance as an evolving ecosystem in the broader web of global finance instead of a specific instrument, asset class or concept. We hold this to be a fruitful approach to engage questions of green finance in both a global and concrete manner across different sectors, geographies, actors, and structures. By acknowledging the global nature and implications of green financial flows, we can push forward thinking not only on climate change and environmental governance in IPE, but also turn attention to the ongoing contestations, contingencies, and crises of finance in the global political economy.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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