Collaborating in a Meritocracy and Post-Crisis Reform

Sarah Paterson
{"title":"Collaborating in a Meritocracy and Post-Crisis Reform","authors":"Sarah Paterson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2801024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is tempting to see the defensive reaction of the finance industry in Britain to the recent financial crisis as something new; a sign of an industry which has developed a rotten culture of self-interestedness and a devil-may-care attitude to the consequences of its actions. This paper argues that in fact the reaction is a familiar one in the historical record, continuing a long-run debate between the industry and the British authorities on responsibility for liquidity and capital crises. Whilst the details of the debate have changed as the market has changed over time, the contours of the general debate are clearly visible from the end of the nineteenth century to the present day. The paper suggests that what is new is the difficulty of mediating the debate in a more meritocratic age, when the soft controls of patronage, class and deference have largely fallen away. It argues that more law and more regulation will not achieve real reform, if it does not reflect the values of those it seeks to control. Instead, it suggests that we must develop ways to encourage collaboration between market participants and the authorities within modern, merit-based systems.","PeriodicalId":117557,"journal":{"name":"LSE Legal Studies Working Paper Series","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSE Legal Studies Working Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2801024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is tempting to see the defensive reaction of the finance industry in Britain to the recent financial crisis as something new; a sign of an industry which has developed a rotten culture of self-interestedness and a devil-may-care attitude to the consequences of its actions. This paper argues that in fact the reaction is a familiar one in the historical record, continuing a long-run debate between the industry and the British authorities on responsibility for liquidity and capital crises. Whilst the details of the debate have changed as the market has changed over time, the contours of the general debate are clearly visible from the end of the nineteenth century to the present day. The paper suggests that what is new is the difficulty of mediating the debate in a more meritocratic age, when the soft controls of patronage, class and deference have largely fallen away. It argues that more law and more regulation will not achieve real reform, if it does not reflect the values of those it seeks to control. Instead, it suggests that we must develop ways to encourage collaboration between market participants and the authorities within modern, merit-based systems.
在精英管理和危机后改革中的合作
人们很容易将英国金融业对最近金融危机的防御性反应视为一种新现象;这标志着这个行业已经形成了一种腐朽的自私自利文化,对自己行为的后果采取了一种“不顾一切”的态度。本文认为,事实上,这种反应在历史记录中并不少见,延续了银行业与英国当局就流动性和资本危机的责任展开的长期辩论。虽然辩论的细节随着市场的变化而变化,但从19世纪末到今天,一般性辩论的轮廓清晰可见。这篇论文指出,在一个更加精英化的时代,当庇护、阶级和顺从的软控制在很大程度上消失时,调解辩论的难度是新的。它认为,如果更多的法律和监管不能反映它试图控制的人的价值观,就不会实现真正的改革。相反,它表明,我们必须设法鼓励市场参与者与当局在现代的择优体系中进行合作。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信