Resilience as the organising framework for reform: the dangers of metaphors in financial regulation

Q2 Social Sciences Law and Financial Markets Review Pub Date : 2019-01-02 DOI:10.1080/17521440.2018.1560535
J. O'Brien
{"title":"Resilience as the organising framework for reform: the dangers of metaphors in financial regulation","authors":"J. O'Brien","doi":"10.1080/17521440.2018.1560535","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As the Global Financial Crisis has demonstrated, fragility without purpose and vigilance is the defining characteristic of any complex system. The tentacles of the finance industry traverse state boundaries. They create moral and economic hazards as well as opportunities. Each poses legitimacy and authority implications. Failure to address those threats have contributed to a populist turn which, in turn, runs the risk of further policy uncertainty and instability. Responding to this crisis through resilience as both metaphor and organising framework is, however, problematic. The paper argues that notwithstanding its increasing usage, resilience is not a neutral concept. Privileging resilience as an end in itself may prove counter-productive unless underpinned by a normative reset of the purpose of the corporation and the market and duties and responsibilities each owe to society. It concludes that without clear definition of purpose and accountability regulatory structural form is irrelevant, as demonstrated by the failure of the twin peak model in Australia.","PeriodicalId":43241,"journal":{"name":"Law and Financial Markets Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17521440.2018.1560535","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Financial Markets Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17521440.2018.1560535","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

As the Global Financial Crisis has demonstrated, fragility without purpose and vigilance is the defining characteristic of any complex system. The tentacles of the finance industry traverse state boundaries. They create moral and economic hazards as well as opportunities. Each poses legitimacy and authority implications. Failure to address those threats have contributed to a populist turn which, in turn, runs the risk of further policy uncertainty and instability. Responding to this crisis through resilience as both metaphor and organising framework is, however, problematic. The paper argues that notwithstanding its increasing usage, resilience is not a neutral concept. Privileging resilience as an end in itself may prove counter-productive unless underpinned by a normative reset of the purpose of the corporation and the market and duties and responsibilities each owe to society. It concludes that without clear definition of purpose and accountability regulatory structural form is irrelevant, as demonstrated by the failure of the twin peak model in Australia.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
弹性作为改革的组织框架:金融监管中隐喻的危险
正如全球金融危机所表明的那样,没有目的和警惕的脆弱性是任何复杂系统的决定性特征。金融业的触角跨越国界。它们既创造了机会,也带来了道德和经济上的危险。每一个都会带来合法性和权威性的影响。未能应对这些威胁导致了民粹主义的转变,而民粹主义反过来又有进一步政策不确定性和不稳定的风险。然而,通过韧性作为隐喻和组织框架来应对这场危机是有问题的。该论文认为,尽管弹性的使用越来越多,但它并不是一个中立的概念。将弹性作为一种目的本身可能会适得其反,除非对公司和市场的目标以及每个人对社会的义务和责任进行规范性重置。它的结论是,如果没有明确的目的和问责制定义,监管结构形式就无关紧要,澳大利亚双峰模式的失败就证明了这一点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Law and Financial Markets Review is a new, independent, English language journal devoted to providing high quality information, comment and analysis for lawyers specialising in banking and financial market issues and to others with interests in legal and regulatory developments affecting the financial markets. Published four times a year LFMR contains articles written by leading experts providing a forum for practical guidance on, as well as reflective and topical analysis of, all major jurisdictions, with a particular focus on the interaction between the law and market practice and behaviour.
期刊最新文献
The fallout from the forex cartels: what legacy for foreign exchange regulation? Supervision of conduct of business: ensuring a fair deal for clients in Europe’s smallest member state Unleashing India's inventive capital: intellectual property as loan collateral Fintech: finance, technology and regulation The EU proposal for a Regulation on the transparency and integrity of ESG rating activities on 13 June 2023: the missing piece of sustainable finance regulation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1