Global financial governance and the problem of accountability: the role of the public sphere
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent developments concerning the international financial architecture have drawn attention to the problem of accountability within the structure of global financial governance. Some progress has been achieved in outlining the scale of the problem in terms of multilateral economic institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (see Woods, above, ch. 2). But little progress has been made with regard to the vexed question of how to address – either conceptually or practically – the problem of accountability in the myriad of other institutions actually involved in global financial governance. This is unsurprising. Most of the institutions and agencies involved in global financial governance are either national in scope or less formalized in their levels of institutionalization than are the IMF and World Bank. Moreover, they are by their very nature highly specialized agencies concerned with technical issues that require a certain level of expertise before meaningful oversight can be achieved. In order to advance lines of accountability in the absence of traditional democratic links between decision-making institutions and the public, I argue that accountability has to be better internalized within the context of a strengthened global financial public sphere, where norms of inclusion and publicness can be established and instantiated.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".