Tony Porter

States, markets and regimes in global finance

List of Tables - List of Figures - Acknowledgements - Introduction: Theory, International Institutions, and Global Finance - Rethinking Regimes: Industry and Institutions - The Regime for Bank Regulation - The Regime for Securities Regulation - Conclusion: Industry and Regime - Bibliography - Index

Private Authority, Technical Authority, and the Globalization of Accounting Standards

This article starts by highlighting the significance of two forms of authorityprivate and technical authoritythat are becoming increasingly important relative to public authority, which traditionally has been considered the only relevant form of authority in international affairs. It then suggests that public, private and technical authority are related to one another not by the erasure of one by another, but rather through a process of politicized functional differentiation. Functional differentiation involves the transformation of multi-functional units into a set of more autonomous units that are related to one another in specific limited ways. The article explores differentiation between and within each of the three types of authority in the globalization of accounting, and the role of power as well. It challenges the view that globalization necessarily involves a centralized exercise of power or an elimination of differences.

Governing the Global Land Grab: Multipolarity, Ideas, and Complexity in Transnational Governance

Since 2008, a series of new regulatory initiatives have emerged to address large-scale land grabs. These initiatives are occurring simultaneously at multiple levels of social organization instead of a single, overarching institutional site. A significant portion of this activity is taking place at the transnational level. We suggest that transnational land governance is indicative of emerging shifts in the practice of governance of global affairs. We analyze such shifts by asking two related questions: what does land grabbing tell us about developments in transnational governance, particularly with regard to North–South relations, and what do these developments in transnational governance mean for regulating land grabbing? Desde 2008, ha surgido una serie de nuevas iniciativas regulatorias para tratar acaparamientos de tierra a gran escala. Estas iniciativas están sucediendo simultáneamente a niveles múltiples de la organización social en vez de un lugar institucional predominante. Una porción importante de esta actividad está tomando lugar al nivel transnacional. Sugerimos que la gobernanza de tierras trasnacionales es indicativa de los cambios que están surgiendo en la práctica de gobernanza de los asuntos globales. Analizamos tales cambios haciendo dos preguntas relacionadas: ¿qué nos dice el acaparamiento de tierras sobre los desarrollos en la gobernanza trasnacional, particularmente con las relaciones norte-sur?, y ¿qué significan estos desarrollos en gobernanza trasnacional para regular el acaparamiento de tierras? 自2008年以来，出现了一系列新的调整性的倡议来强调大规模的土地掠夺问题。这些倡议在社会组织的多个层次同时出现，替代了单一的基础的机构。该活动的很大一部分发生在跨国层面。我们提出跨国土地治理代表着全球事务管理实践的新兴转变。我们通过提出两个相关问题来分析这些转变：关于跨国治理的发展、特别是对于南北关系，土地掠夺告诉了我们什么；这些跨国治理的发展对于控制土地掠夺来说又意味着什么？ منذ العام 2008، ظهرت سلسلةٌ من المبادرات التنظيمية لمعالجة عمليات الاستيلاء الكبيرة على الأراضي. وتجري هذه المبادرات في وقت واحد على عدة مستويات من التنظيم الاجتماعي وليس في موقع مؤسسي واحد. ويحدث جزء كبير من هذا النشاط على المستوى العابر للقوميات. وتقترح الورقة الحالية أن هذه الحوكمة عابرة القوميات للسيطرة على الأراضي تدل على على تحولات صاعدة في ممارسة حوكمة الشؤون العالمية. ونقوم بتحليل تلك التحولات عن طريق الإجابة عن السؤالين الآتيين: ماذا نتعلم من عمليات الاستيلاء على الأراضي بشأن التطورات في الحوكمة عابرة القوميات، وخاصة فيما يتعلق بعلاقات الشمال والجنوب؟ وماذا تعني تلك التطورات بالنسبة لتنظيم الاستيلاء على الأراضي؟ 2008년 이후 대규모 토지 점유를 다루기 위한 일련의 새로운 규제 조치들이 등장했다. 이러한 규제 조치들은 하나의 단일한 포괄적인 제도 대신에 동시적이고 다중적인 사회 조직 수준에서 등장했다. 상당 부분의 이러한 활동들은 초국가적 수준에서 발생했다. 우리는 초국적인 토지 거너번스가 지구적 사안을 다루는 거버넌스 행위에서 일어나고 있는 변화의 지표라고 제안한다. 우리는 두 가지 서로 관련된 질문을 제기하여 이러한 변화를 분석한다. 토지 점유가 초국적 거버넌스 특히 선진국-후진국 관계와 관련하여 발전에 대해서 어떤 의미를 지니는가? 그리고 초국 적 거너번스에서의 발전이 토지 점유 규제에 대해서 무엇을 의미하는가? С 2008 года появился ряд новых регулирующих инициатив для решения проблемы крупномасштабных захватов земель. Эти инициативы проходят одновременно на множестве уровней социальной организации вместо одной, всеобъемлющей институциональной площадки. Значительная часть этой деятельности происходит на транснациональном уровне. Мы полагаем, что транснациональное управление земельными ресурсами является показателем сдвигов в практике глобального управления. Мы анализируем такие сдвиги, задавая два взаимосвязанных вопроса: что захват земель говорит о событиях в транснациональном управлении, особенно в отношениях Север-Юг; и что эти изменения в транснациональном управлении означают для регулирования захвата земель?

Transnational Financial Associations and the Governance of Global Finance : Assembling Wealth and Power

1. Introduction: Private Authority and Private Associations in Global Finance and Global Governance 2. Conceptualizing Transnational Financial Associations and Global Financial Power Section I 3. Transnational financial associations and the global public sphere: reshaping the public/private frontier 4. Constructing markets, industries and technologies: the effects of transnational financial associations on global financial markets 5. Transnational financial associations and their role in constructing and servicing financial communities Section II 6. Transnational financial associations and regional integration: the special case of the European Union 7. Transnational financial associations in the global south: globalization, regionalism and development 8. Inclusion and differentiation: transnational financial associations and the pursuit of social and cultural ends through finance 9. Conclusion

The Transnational Agenda for Financial Regulation in Developing Countries

Often global finance is portrayed as involving on the one hand individual states, the locus of political authority, and on the other hand billions of dispersed intangible private financial transactions, the locus of market forces. This states versus financial markets dualism underestimates the important political role played by international institutions in bringing about and regulating the globalization of finance. Analyzing the impact of these international institutions on citizens and governments is an important part of better understanding the relationship between financial globalization and democracy in emerging markets.

Experimentalism in European Union and global financial governance: interactions, contrasts, and implications

ABSTRACT Evidence of substantial experimental governance has been found in a variety of areas of European Union (EU) governance. However the relationship between experimentalism in the EU and global governance remains unclear. Is experimentalist governance an advantage or a disadvantage for the EU in its interactions with global regulatory arrangements? This contribution examines the experimentalist character of EU financial governance and its interactions with the International Monetary Fund, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and the International Financial Reporting Standards governance institutions. Our analysis suggests that experimentalism provides advantages for the EU in areas of global governance that are themselves experimentalist. This argument challenges more conventional approaches that view bureaucratically centralized power as always necessary for the successful promotion of interests and attainment of influence at the global level. Since some governance problems require detailed harmonized rule implementation at single points in time, we also find that experimentalist variation occurs temporally as well as across locations or jurisdictions.

Politics or markets? The determinants of cross‐border financial integration in the NAFTA and the EU

One of the most striking political developments of the past two decades has been the heightened interest at both a practical and theoretical level in new institutional arrangements that may be driven by or may better regulate an economy that is experiencing rapid trans-border integration. In this article we seek better to understand the more general relationship between trans-border economic integration and political authority by focusing on financial integration in North America and Europe. We position ourselves among those who challenge a prevailing model of this relationship that sees changes in political authority being driven by market integration. There are innumerable variants of this prevailing model among both critics and supporters of integration, including liberal economists who applaud a neoliberal political restructuring carried out at the international and domestic levels in response to global market pressures, protesters who fear that powerful economic actors favouring market integration will seriously undermine the capacity of states to protect vulnerable citizens, or older political theories of integration, such as functionalism, that saw political authority as arising unproblematically from trans-border transactions or from collaborative functional projects. We enter into this debate by seeking to explain an intriguing puzzle that this prevailing model cannot. If one compares North America and Europe it is apparent and widely accepted that markets and market actors play a much more prominent role in the former than in the latter. This is evident in the greater reliance historically in Canada and the USA on competitive capital markets relative to bank loans or state credit in financing development in continental Europe, a difference that shows up on a regional scale in the figures for the ratio of bank credit to market capitalisation, which is an average of 0.81 for North America and 1.94 for the EU. The difference is also evident in the size of financial markets relative to GDP, which is 2.21 for North America and 1.32 for the EU. The perception that market forces are more prominent in North America than Europe is evident in the common characterisation of European

Beyond the International Monetary Fund: The Broader Institutional Arrangements in Global Financial Governance

In recent years there has been an upswing in interest in the reform of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In contrast to its earlier years, the IMF today exists in an international environment populated by a wide variety of public and private-sector international institutions that compete with and complement the work done by the IMF. A key factor in the IMFs performance and future prospects is its relationship with these institutions. This paper analyzes institutional developments in the IMFs environment, linking these with broader contemporary social trends, and drawing conclusions about the significance of these developments for IMF reform. These social trends include a shift from hierarchies to networks, a recognition of the socially-constructed character of knowledge and the growing importance of this knowledge relative to material resources, and a shift from a reliance on US hegemony to multilateralism. The paper argues that the IMF has taken some modest steps in its work to include these considerations and enhance its relationship with other institutions, but these elements need to be included in the process of IMF reform to a much greater degree.

Technology, Governance and Political Conflict in International Industries

1. Theorizing the Role of Technology in the Governance of Global Industries 2. The Cotton Textile Industry: from the Industrial Revolution to Today 3. The Steel Industry: Nationally-Based Cartels and Market-Sharing Arrangements 4. Electrical Machinery: Enduring Complexity and the Longevity of Leading Firms 5. Chemicals: Complex Technologies and Private Governance 6. Automobiles: Assembly Lines and International Investments 7. Semiconductors: Rapid Maturation and Cartel Creation 8. Comparing Across Industries 9. Industry Structures, Systematic Factors, and Implications for the Study of International Relations

Research Ethics Governance and Political Science in Canada

The governance of research ethics in Canada, including its research ethics boards (REBs), which correspond to the institutional review boards in the U.S., often is portrayed as an exemplary model of cross-disciplinary cooperation and consultation that is altruistically striving to protect research subjects from abuses in biomedical, social sciences, and humanities research. While there is indeed a great deal of altruism and good intention among those involved in this governance, power and interests also play a role that is of particular concern for political scientists. Governance arrangements have been driven by biomedical research, which is vastly better funded than social sciences and humanities (SSH) research. These arrangements have been imposed on the SSH research community with little sensitivity to the distinctive problems of SSH research, despite concerns about such problems that political scientists and other SSH researchers have expressed for a decade. A recent proposal initiated by major research funders to dramatically strengthen research ethics governance has generated even more alarm.