Norms, Legitimacy, and Global Financial Governance

Despite regular and serious systemic volatility, reform of international financial architecture remains limited, retaining market-oriented characteristics and adjustment mechanisms. A failure of the architecture to focus on the political underpinnings of global financial and monetary governance yields crucial deficiencies. The article defends three propositions implying a serious challenge to political legitimacy in contemporary financial governance: i) external financial constraints conflict with a range of potential domestic, particularly democratic, political imperatives; ii) developed state initiated global financial integration strengthens private interests in the policy process, narrowing the definition of the public interest in a democratic context; iii) market-friendly institutional reforms put pressure on domestic socio-political arrangements underpinning longer run political legitimacy. The article first analyses norms and legitimacy in global financial governance; then outlines the constraints on public policy of global financial market integration in the light of the foregoing analysis of legitimacy; thirdly it discusses possible solutions.

Financial Liberalisation and Political Variables: a response to Abiad and Mody

We challenge recent findings by Abiad and Mody (2005) which suggest that financial liberalization has little to do with political variables. This analysis is at odds with some of the established literature, and only with difficulty comes to terms with the considerable cross-national variation in the pace, phasing, and extent of financial reforms over time. Using Abiad and Mody's own index of financial liberalization, but slightly unbundling and refining their measures of 'ideological affinity' and 'regime type', we examine what Abiad and Mody call the 'triggers' of liberalisation and the dynamics of the subsequent 'cumulative transformation'. We demonstrate the role of political variables in relation to initial liberalisation episodes, and as variables affecting the cumulative dynamics and sustainability of ongoing financial reform processes, including those which affect the acceptability and costs of liberalization. These factors include (i) shifts to - as opposed to levels in - Left government; (ii) the incidence of Left governments combined with low levels of democracy; (iii) international voter support for free markets; (iv) the extent of social safety nets; (v) the presence of multilateral and bilateral aid programs. Our empirical investigation confirms these factors as statistically significant determinants of financial liberalization, and reveal what Abiad and Mody identify as 'learning' to be a highly political process.

The Political Economy of Global Financial Governance: The Costs of Basle II for Poor Countries

The 1990s financial crises triggered many changes to the design of the international financial system, the so-called international financial architecture. While much affected, developing countries have had very little influence on the changes, which the formulation of the new Basle capital accord (B-II) illustrates. The article shows that B-II has largely been formulated to serve the interests of powerful market players, with developing economies being left out. For developing countries, B-II can make domestic financing more costly and raise the costs of and reduce the access to external financing. Importantly, B-II can exacerbate fluctuations in the supply of external financing, an unfortunate outcome, given that developing countries already suffer from volatility.Basle Committee, capital adequacy, financial governance, financial architecture, financial reform, international standards, capital flows, poor countries, cost of capital, international development

Sources and Legitimacy of Financial Liberalization

This article seeks to clarify how we understand domestic and international sources of globalization and specifically how we explain financial liberalization across countries. The article also develops our understanding of the underlying legitimacy of financial liberalization. We debate e.g. Abiad and Mody (2005) and others who have found political factors to have little impact on financial openness. Using the same data undergirding such conclusions we argue, in contrast, that even a slight broadening of the political variables employed in the model and much closer attention to “input” and “output” aspects of the political legitimacy of financial liberalization over time reveal a more central role for politics in shaping liberalization. Input legitimacy involves the representation of stakeholders in initial and ongoing decisions to liberalize, while “output” legitimacy concerns liberalization’s distributional consequences and management thereof over time. Several empirical measures of domestic-national and international political factors plausibly influence such aspects of legitimacy and are found to play a significant role in shaping liberalization, suggesting legitimation politics to be more important to financial openness than existing studies have typically acknowledged.financial openness; liberalization dynamics; financial regulation; political legitimacy; political variables; financial reform

Financial Liberalisation and Political Variables: a response to Abiad and Mody

We challenge recent findings by Abiad and Mody (2005) which suggest that financial liberalization has little to do with political variables. This analysis is at odds with some of the established literature, and only with difficulty comes to terms with the considerable cross-national variation in the pace, phasing, and extent of financial reforms over time. Using Abiad and Mody’s own index of financial liberalization, but slightly unbundling and refining their measures of ‘ideological affinity’ and ‘regime type’, we examine what Abiad and Mody call the ‘triggers’ of liberalisation and the dynamics of the subsequent ‘cumulative transformation’. We demonstrate the role of political variables in relation to initial liberalisation episodes, and as variables affecting the cumulative dynamics and sustainability of ongoing financial reform processes, including those which affect the acceptability and costs of liberalization. These factors include (i) shifts to – as opposed to levels in – Left government; (ii) the incidence of Left governments combined with low levels of democracy; (iii) international voter support for free markets; (iv) the extent of social safety nets; (v) the presence of multilateral and bilateral aid programs. Our empirical investigation confirms these factors as statistically significant determinants of financial liberalization, and reveal what Abiad and Mody identify as ‘learning’ to be a highly political process.

Optimum financial areas : retooling the governance of global finance

First published: 15 February 2023This article analyses the political economy of financial stability under conditions of deep cross-border market integration, adapting the ‘joint products’ approach of Broz among others. Many argue that financial stability is a public good; we propose that it is inherently excludable and that particular conditions must obtain to ensure it is non-diminishable for all. The difficulties of providing financial stability arise because of the ‘club goods’ nature of monetary and financial systems. We then propose six institutional preconditions that can stabilize a financial market that is integrated across multiple regulatory jurisdictions. We use case studies of Great Britain, the US, and Canada to show how national governments have dealt with these political economy dilemmas to stumble toward similar arrangements to stabilize domestic financial market integration. Three criteria relate to the ‘technical substructure’ of markets, while three others focus on macro-prudential considerations. Together they constitute necessary and sufficient conditions for the provision of financial stability. These criteria generate political economy obstacles both individually and as an interdependent package but can mitigate the costly dynamics of financial market disintegration in times of crisis. We argue that these criteria can be applied across national boundaries as well as across regulatory jurisdictions within them