国际监管标准的相关性和必要性

E. Kane
{"title":"国际监管标准的相关性和必要性","authors":"E. Kane","doi":"10.1353/PFS.2001.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"informational networks makes strategic complementarities commonplace. These complementarities mean that coordinating the actions of competing institutions can manifestly increase their aggregate marginal return. However, increased coordination may or may not improve social welfare. Cooperative behavior can improve the industry’s marginal return in two very different ways: (1) by increasing the perceived quality of regulatee products by enhancing at low cost the confidence and convenience they offer to consumers or (2) by fostering cartel or subsidy arrangements that increase industry revenues at the expense of the welfare of parties in other sectors of the economy. Regulators cut through and reorient individual-producer preferences by adopting tandem strategies of rulemaking and enforcement. Their modus operandi is not to brutally force each regulatee to obey their dictates, but to restructure regulatees’ incentives in hopes of making compliance in their best interests. Cutting away pieces of others’ incentives is a delicate art that inevitably produces both predicted and unpredicted effects. Whether one is prepared to view all allegedly unpredicted effects as truly unintended depends on one’s theory of the regulatory process. Public interest theory views a nation’s regulators as faithful agents for society that single-mindedly pursue the common good. In this theory’s ideal world, financial regulators seek to","PeriodicalId":124672,"journal":{"name":"Brookings-Wharton Papers on Financial Services","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Relevance and Need for International Regulatory Standards\",\"authors\":\"E. Kane\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/PFS.2001.0007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"informational networks makes strategic complementarities commonplace. These complementarities mean that coordinating the actions of competing institutions can manifestly increase their aggregate marginal return. However, increased coordination may or may not improve social welfare. Cooperative behavior can improve the industry’s marginal return in two very different ways: (1) by increasing the perceived quality of regulatee products by enhancing at low cost the confidence and convenience they offer to consumers or (2) by fostering cartel or subsidy arrangements that increase industry revenues at the expense of the welfare of parties in other sectors of the economy. Regulators cut through and reorient individual-producer preferences by adopting tandem strategies of rulemaking and enforcement. Their modus operandi is not to brutally force each regulatee to obey their dictates, but to restructure regulatees’ incentives in hopes of making compliance in their best interests. Cutting away pieces of others’ incentives is a delicate art that inevitably produces both predicted and unpredicted effects. Whether one is prepared to view all allegedly unpredicted effects as truly unintended depends on one’s theory of the regulatory process. Public interest theory views a nation’s regulators as faithful agents for society that single-mindedly pursue the common good. In this theory’s ideal world, financial regulators seek to\",\"PeriodicalId\":124672,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brookings-Wharton Papers on Financial Services\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brookings-Wharton Papers on Financial Services\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/PFS.2001.0007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brookings-Wharton Papers on Financial Services","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/PFS.2001.0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

信息网络使战略互补成为常态。这种互补性意味着协调竞争机构的行动可以明显地增加它们的总边际收益。然而,加强协调可能会也可能不会改善社会福利。合作行为可以通过两种截然不同的方式提高行业的边际收益:(1)通过以低成本增强消费者的信心和便利来提高受监管产品的感知质量;(2)通过促进卡特尔或补贴安排,以牺牲其他经济部门各方的福利为代价来增加行业收入。监管机构通过采取规则制定和执行的串联策略,突破并重新调整个人生产者的偏好。他们的做法不是残酷地强迫每一个被监管者服从他们的命令,而是重组被监管者的激励机制,希望他们的服从符合他们的最大利益。削减他人的激励是一门微妙的艺术,不可避免地会产生可预测和不可预测的影响。一个人是否准备好将所有据称不可预测的影响视为真正无意的影响,取决于他对监管过程的理论。公共利益理论认为,一个国家的监管者是一心一意追求共同利益的社会忠实代理人。在这一理论的理想世界中,金融监管机构寻求
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Relevance and Need for International Regulatory Standards
informational networks makes strategic complementarities commonplace. These complementarities mean that coordinating the actions of competing institutions can manifestly increase their aggregate marginal return. However, increased coordination may or may not improve social welfare. Cooperative behavior can improve the industry’s marginal return in two very different ways: (1) by increasing the perceived quality of regulatee products by enhancing at low cost the confidence and convenience they offer to consumers or (2) by fostering cartel or subsidy arrangements that increase industry revenues at the expense of the welfare of parties in other sectors of the economy. Regulators cut through and reorient individual-producer preferences by adopting tandem strategies of rulemaking and enforcement. Their modus operandi is not to brutally force each regulatee to obey their dictates, but to restructure regulatees’ incentives in hopes of making compliance in their best interests. Cutting away pieces of others’ incentives is a delicate art that inevitably produces both predicted and unpredicted effects. Whether one is prepared to view all allegedly unpredicted effects as truly unintended depends on one’s theory of the regulatory process. Public interest theory views a nation’s regulators as faithful agents for society that single-mindedly pursue the common good. In this theory’s ideal world, financial regulators seek to
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Tort Liability, Insurance Rates, and the Insurance Cycle Brokers and the Insurance of Non-Verifiable Losses Editors' Summary Extending the Theory to Meet the Practice of Insurance The "Crisis" in Medical Malpractice Insurance
×
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