Distinctions, Affiliations, and Professional Knowledge in Financial Reform Expert Groups

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

    Resumé

    Who determines what ideas matter in reform debates? This contribution examines reform proposals from the expert groups that emerged during the recent international financial crisis. To do so it follows fractal distinctions – distinctions that replicate themselves in subsequent iterations – among the reports. Fractal distinctions, such as between ‘behaviour’ or ‘system’ as a reform focus, allow us to locate the object of regulation within expert groups, the experts' professional context and the politics behind the commissioning of work. Analysing fractal distinctions provides a useful way to understand the different stresses in reports with and without clear mandates, and the role of important members of the policy community in promoting particular reform ideas. The contribution finds that differences in ideas emerging from the financial reform expert groups reflect nested power relationships in the commissioning of work, constituent audiences and reform priorities among governing institutions, rather than distinct ‘European’ and ‘American’ ideas.
    Who determines what ideas matter in reform debates? This contribution examines reform proposals from the expert groups that emerged during the recent international financial crisis. To do so it follows fractal distinctions – distinctions that replicate themselves in subsequent iterations – among the reports. Fractal distinctions, such as between ‘behaviour’ or ‘system’ as a reform focus, allow us to locate the object of regulation within expert groups, the experts' professional context and the politics behind the commissioning of work. Analysing fractal distinctions provides a useful way to understand the different stresses in reports with and without clear mandates, and the role of important members of the policy community in promoting particular reform ideas. The contribution finds that differences in ideas emerging from the financial reform expert groups reflect nested power relationships in the commissioning of work, constituent audiences and reform priorities among governing institutions, rather than distinct ‘European’ and ‘American’ ideas.
    SprogEngelsk
    TidsskriftJournal of European Public Policy
    Vol/bind21
    Udgave nummer3
    Sider389-407
    ISSN1350-1763
    DOI
    StatusUdgivet - 2014

    Bibliografisk note

    Also published as contribution to: Europe's Place in Global Financial Governance after the Crisis /ed. Daniel Mügge. Abingdon : Routledge, 2015. ISBN: 9781317621782 / 9781138803497. (Chapter 5, pp. 74-92)

    Emneord

    • Expertise
    • Professionals
    • Policy Communities
    • Fractal Distinctions
    • Financial Reform
    • Financial Crisis

    Citer dette

    @article{a8bd2c3638fb4a828ee0a75e3efcad90,
    title = "Distinctions, Affiliations, and Professional Knowledge in Financial Reform Expert Groups",
    abstract = "Who determines what ideas matter in reform debates? This contribution examines reform proposals from the expert groups that emerged during the recent international financial crisis. To do so it follows fractal distinctions – distinctions that replicate themselves in subsequent iterations – among the reports. Fractal distinctions, such as between ‘behaviour’ or ‘system’ as a reform focus, allow us to locate the object of regulation within expert groups, the experts' professional context and the politics behind the commissioning of work. Analysing fractal distinctions provides a useful way to understand the different stresses in reports with and without clear mandates, and the role of important members of the policy community in promoting particular reform ideas. The contribution finds that differences in ideas emerging from the financial reform expert groups reflect nested power relationships in the commissioning of work, constituent audiences and reform priorities among governing institutions, rather than distinct ‘European’ and ‘American’ ideas.",
    keywords = "Expertise, Professionals, Policy Communities, Fractal Distinctions, Financial Reform, Financial Crisis",
    author = "Leonard Seabrooke and Eleni Tsingou",
    note = "Also published as contribution to: Europe's Place in Global Financial Governance after the Crisis /ed. Daniel M{\"u}gge. Abingdon : Routledge, 2015. ISBN: 9781317621782 / 9781138803497. (Chapter 5, pp. 74-92)",
    year = "2014",
    doi = "10.1080/13501763.2014.882967",
    language = "English",
    volume = "21",
    pages = "389--407",
    journal = "Journal of European Public Policy",
    issn = "1350-1763",
    publisher = "Routledge",
    number = "3",

    }

    Distinctions, Affiliations, and Professional Knowledge in Financial Reform Expert Groups. / Seabrooke, Leonard; Tsingou, Eleni.

    I: Journal of European Public Policy, Bind 21, Nr. 3, 2014, s. 389-407.

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Distinctions, Affiliations, and Professional Knowledge in Financial Reform Expert Groups

    AU - Seabrooke,Leonard

    AU - Tsingou,Eleni

    N1 - Also published as contribution to: Europe's Place in Global Financial Governance after the Crisis /ed. Daniel Mügge. Abingdon : Routledge, 2015. ISBN: 9781317621782 / 9781138803497. (Chapter 5, pp. 74-92)

    PY - 2014

    Y1 - 2014

    N2 - Who determines what ideas matter in reform debates? This contribution examines reform proposals from the expert groups that emerged during the recent international financial crisis. To do so it follows fractal distinctions – distinctions that replicate themselves in subsequent iterations – among the reports. Fractal distinctions, such as between ‘behaviour’ or ‘system’ as a reform focus, allow us to locate the object of regulation within expert groups, the experts' professional context and the politics behind the commissioning of work. Analysing fractal distinctions provides a useful way to understand the different stresses in reports with and without clear mandates, and the role of important members of the policy community in promoting particular reform ideas. The contribution finds that differences in ideas emerging from the financial reform expert groups reflect nested power relationships in the commissioning of work, constituent audiences and reform priorities among governing institutions, rather than distinct ‘European’ and ‘American’ ideas.

    AB - Who determines what ideas matter in reform debates? This contribution examines reform proposals from the expert groups that emerged during the recent international financial crisis. To do so it follows fractal distinctions – distinctions that replicate themselves in subsequent iterations – among the reports. Fractal distinctions, such as between ‘behaviour’ or ‘system’ as a reform focus, allow us to locate the object of regulation within expert groups, the experts' professional context and the politics behind the commissioning of work. Analysing fractal distinctions provides a useful way to understand the different stresses in reports with and without clear mandates, and the role of important members of the policy community in promoting particular reform ideas. The contribution finds that differences in ideas emerging from the financial reform expert groups reflect nested power relationships in the commissioning of work, constituent audiences and reform priorities among governing institutions, rather than distinct ‘European’ and ‘American’ ideas.

    KW - Expertise

    KW - Professionals

    KW - Policy Communities

    KW - Fractal Distinctions

    KW - Financial Reform

    KW - Financial Crisis

    U2 - 10.1080/13501763.2014.882967

    DO - 10.1080/13501763.2014.882967

    M3 - Journal article

    VL - 21

    SP - 389

    EP - 407

    JO - Journal of European Public Policy

    T2 - Journal of European Public Policy

    JF - Journal of European Public Policy

    SN - 1350-1763

    IS - 3

    ER -