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

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

    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.
    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.
    LanguageEnglish
    JournalJournal of European Public Policy
    Volume21
    Issue number3
    Pages389-407
    ISSN1350-1763
    DOIs
    StatePublished - 2014

    Bibliographical 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)

    Keywords

      Cite this

      @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.

      In: Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2014, p. 389-407.

      Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-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 -