Failed Attempt to Break Up the Oligopoly in Sovereign Credit Rating Market after Financial Crises

IF 2.4 Q2 ECONOMICS
A. Malewska
{"title":"Failed Attempt to Break Up the Oligopoly in Sovereign Credit Rating Market after Financial Crises","authors":"A. Malewska","doi":"10.5709/CE.1897-9254.441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For decades, the credit rating market has been dominated by three major agencies (Moody's, S&P and Fitch Ratings). Their oligopolistic dominance is especially strong in sovereign credit ratings industry, where they hold a collective global share of more than 99%. Global financial crisis and the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis exposed serious flaws in rating process and forced public authorities to act. This study investigates effectiveness of new regulations adopted in the United States and in the European Union after financial crises in terms of reducing oligopolistic dominance of the “Big Three” in sovereign credit ratings market. The study applies descriptive statistical analysis of economic indicators describing concentration rate in a market, as well as content analysis of legal acts and case study methodology. Analysis shows that the Dodd-Frank reform and new European rules on supervision of credit rating agencies were not effective enough and did not lead to the increased competition in the market. The evidence from this study is explained using two alternative perspectives – economic theory of natural oligopoly and hegemonic stability theory coming from international relations field.","PeriodicalId":44824,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Economics","volume":"52 1","pages":"152-163"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1089","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5709/CE.1897-9254.441","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

For decades, the credit rating market has been dominated by three major agencies (Moody's, S&P and Fitch Ratings). Their oligopolistic dominance is especially strong in sovereign credit ratings industry, where they hold a collective global share of more than 99%. Global financial crisis and the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis exposed serious flaws in rating process and forced public authorities to act. This study investigates effectiveness of new regulations adopted in the United States and in the European Union after financial crises in terms of reducing oligopolistic dominance of the “Big Three” in sovereign credit ratings market. The study applies descriptive statistical analysis of economic indicators describing concentration rate in a market, as well as content analysis of legal acts and case study methodology. Analysis shows that the Dodd-Frank reform and new European rules on supervision of credit rating agencies were not effective enough and did not lead to the increased competition in the market. The evidence from this study is explained using two alternative perspectives – economic theory of natural oligopoly and hegemonic stability theory coming from international relations field.
金融危机后打破主权信用评级市场寡头垄断的失败尝试
几十年来,信用评级市场一直由三大评级机构(穆迪、标准普尔和惠誉评级)主导。它们的寡头垄断地位在主权信用评级行业尤为突出,它们在主权信用评级行业的全球份额总计超过99%。全球金融危机和欧元区主权债务危机暴露了评级程序的严重缺陷,迫使公共当局采取行动。本研究调查了金融危机后美国和欧盟在减少主权信用评级市场“三巨头”寡头垄断方面采取的新法规的有效性。本研究采用描述市场集中度的经济指标的描述性统计分析,以及法律行为的内容分析和案例研究方法。分析表明,多德-弗兰克改革和欧洲对信用评级机构监管的新规定不够有效,没有导致市场竞争的加剧。本文从自然寡头经济理论和国际关系领域的霸权稳定理论两方面解释了本研究的证据。
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
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
9.50%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: The mission of the Contemporary Economics is to publish advanced theoretical and empirical research in economics, finance, accounting and management with the noticeable contribution and impact to the development of those disciplines and preferably with practice relevancies. All entirety of methods is desirable, including a falsification of conventional understanding, theory building through inductive or qualitative research, first empirical testing of a theory, meta-analysis with theoretical implications, constructive replication that clarifies the boundaries or range of a theory for theoretical research as well as qualitative, quantitative, field, laboratory, meta-analytic, and combination for an empirical research. This clear priority for comprehensive manuscripts containing a methodology-based theoretical and empirical research with implications and recommendations for policymaking does not exclude manuscripts entirely focused on theory or methodology. Manuscripts that raise significant, actual topics of international relevance will be highly appreciated. The interdisciplinary approach including – besides economic, financial, accounting or managerial –also other aspects, is welcomed.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信