标准化即治理:信用评级机构的案例

D. Kerwer
{"title":"标准化即治理:信用评级机构的案例","authors":"D. Kerwer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.269311","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The global integration of financial markets has been accompanied by a transformation of their governance structures. Private intermediary organisations now play a more important role than in the past. A prominent example is provided by the commercial credit rating agencies that have established themselves as influential gatekeepers of the international credit market. A problem with this form of intermediation is that when there are errors rating agencies can do considerable damage to borrowers and investors alike. Still, it is very difficult to hold rating agencies accountable. This paper proposes comparing the activity of credit rating agencies with standard setting in order to explain this accountability gap. The argument is that the standards of credit-worthiness established by the rating agencies are difficult to challenge because they are based on neutral expertise, on the one hand, but are subject to mandatory enforcement by financial market regulation, on the other. The resulting compliance without complaints reduces the possibilities for learning. This perspective leads to a research agenda in which the preconditions and institutional remedies for accountability problems of global governance by private intermediary organisations can be comparatively explored.","PeriodicalId":247961,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods Research Paper Series","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"47","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Standardising as Governance: The Case of Credit Rating Agencies\",\"authors\":\"D. Kerwer\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.269311\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The global integration of financial markets has been accompanied by a transformation of their governance structures. Private intermediary organisations now play a more important role than in the past. A prominent example is provided by the commercial credit rating agencies that have established themselves as influential gatekeepers of the international credit market. A problem with this form of intermediation is that when there are errors rating agencies can do considerable damage to borrowers and investors alike. Still, it is very difficult to hold rating agencies accountable. This paper proposes comparing the activity of credit rating agencies with standard setting in order to explain this accountability gap. The argument is that the standards of credit-worthiness established by the rating agencies are difficult to challenge because they are based on neutral expertise, on the one hand, but are subject to mandatory enforcement by financial market regulation, on the other. The resulting compliance without complaints reduces the possibilities for learning. This perspective leads to a research agenda in which the preconditions and institutional remedies for accountability problems of global governance by private intermediary organisations can be comparatively explored.\",\"PeriodicalId\":247961,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods Research Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"64 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"47\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods Research Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.269311\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.269311","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 47

摘要

金融市场的全球一体化伴随着其治理结构的转变。私人中介机构现在扮演着比过去更重要的角色。商业信用评级机构提供了一个突出的例子,它们已成为国际信贷市场有影响力的看门人。这种中介形式的一个问题是,当出现错误时,评级机构可能对借款人和投资者造成相当大的损害。不过,要让评级机构承担责任是非常困难的。本文建议将信用评级机构的活动与标准制定进行比较,以解释这种问责差距。他们的论点是,评级机构建立的信用标准很难受到挑战,因为它们一方面基于中立的专业知识,另一方面又受制于金融市场监管机构的强制执行。没有抱怨的顺从减少了学习的可能性。这一视角导致了一个研究议程,其中可以比较探索私人中介组织全球治理问责问题的先决条件和制度补救措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Standardising as Governance: The Case of Credit Rating Agencies
The global integration of financial markets has been accompanied by a transformation of their governance structures. Private intermediary organisations now play a more important role than in the past. A prominent example is provided by the commercial credit rating agencies that have established themselves as influential gatekeepers of the international credit market. A problem with this form of intermediation is that when there are errors rating agencies can do considerable damage to borrowers and investors alike. Still, it is very difficult to hold rating agencies accountable. This paper proposes comparing the activity of credit rating agencies with standard setting in order to explain this accountability gap. The argument is that the standards of credit-worthiness established by the rating agencies are difficult to challenge because they are based on neutral expertise, on the one hand, but are subject to mandatory enforcement by financial market regulation, on the other. The resulting compliance without complaints reduces the possibilities for learning. This perspective leads to a research agenda in which the preconditions and institutional remedies for accountability problems of global governance by private intermediary organisations can be comparatively explored.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信