Between radical ideas and business as usual? An examination of macroprudential policy in Europe.

在激进的想法和一切照旧之间？

• 批准号: 2114656
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University of Warwick
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2018
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2018 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2114656
• 关键词: Between; radical; ideas; business; usual

This PhD is aims to explain the relatively large gap between the expectations of many supporters and observers of macroprudential ideas, and the much more muted actual policies based on this now seemingly universally accepted set of ideas. Using Europe as its main case study, the central research question of this PhD is:What explains the extremely slow and incremental dynamics in the development of a macroprudential approach?Despite its prominence in expert and policy circles, macroprudential policy remains an under-researched issue in IPE.Those papers on macroprudential policy that do exist are rather speculative in nature, focus mainly on big ideational issues, or are concerned with the broader division of powers and responsibilities, and the influence that central bankers have had in this regard. While this PhD will build on these studies to some extent, it also aims to go beyond them by looking at the substantial issues that have arisen at a more fine grained level, examining what has given the macroprudential regime in Europe its specific shape, and looking at what has determined its pace and direction over the past few years. As such, it would constitute the first in depth case study of the development of a localised macroprudential regime.On a theoretical level, I build on the scholarship on the role of "ideas" circulating within expert networks, in shaping the global governance of finance. Such a focus on the ideas of experts seems only appropriate, given the fact that all previous IPE studies of macroprudential policy have pointed towards the pivotal role played by central bankers. At the same time I want to add something new to this scholarship by examining the potential of the "epistemic community" concept in explaining the dynamics within those expert circles. This concept has been relatively neglected within the literature on the "politics of expertise" in financial governance, despite the potential it has for improving our understanding of ideational dynamics by highlighting the role of norms, principled beliefs, shared causal beliefs, and shared notions of validity, in influencing ideational selection and the production of knowledge and policy agendas within these networks.I am particularly interested in examining the contention of some recent scholarship, that existing frameworks might have put too much emphasis on the agenda setting function of experts, thus neglecting more continuous and gradual forms of influence. Macroprudential policy appears to be a most likely case in this regard, given the fact that even ten years after its rapid diffusion, key concepts, measurements and goals remain unclear and subject to significant debate, while those experts most closely involved in the debates occupy key institutional positions within central banks and international institutions. This makes it an ideal case for examining whether, how, and by which mechanisms experts can have continued influence over policy, holding the promise of generating novel theoretical insights.For this, process tracing, and in particular the recent advances on the process tracing of "ideas", are particularly useful. At the same time, I will conduct an extensive analysis of policy documents, blueprints, speeches, opinion pieces, and transcripts from meetings, to examine the internal logic of different ideas and arguments, and to establish the extent to which the outcome of a struggle over ideas can indeed explain my central research question. In particular, I am interested in establishing whether a politics of defining and measuring the "costs and benefits" of intervention in financial markets, a normative preference for automatic stabilisers and against discretion, as well as an attempt at depoliticising central banks in charge of macroprudential policy, can explain the lack of radical reform and intervention.

这一博士学位旨在解释宏观审慎理念的许多支持者和观察者的预期与基于这一如今似乎被普遍接受的一套理念制定的更为温和的实际政策之间的相对巨大差距。以欧洲为主要案例研究对象，这位博士的中心研究问题是：如何解释宏观审慎方法发展过程中极其缓慢和渐进的动态？尽管宏观审慎政策在专家和政策界占有重要地位，但它在IPE中仍然是一个研究不足的问题。那些确实存在的关于宏观审慎政策的论文性质相当投机，主要关注重大的概念问题，或者关注更广泛的权责划分，以及央行在这方面的影响力。尽管这一博士学位将在一定程度上建立在这些研究的基础上，但它的目标也是超越这些研究，在更细微的层面上研究出现的实质性问题，考察是什么赋予了欧洲宏观审慎制度的特定形态，并考察是什么决定了过去几年的速度和方向。因此，这将是关于本地化宏观审慎制度发展的第一个深入案例研究。在理论层面上，我的学术基础是在专家网络中传播的“想法”在塑造全球金融治理方面的作用。鉴于之前所有关于宏观审慎政策的IPE研究都指向央行官员扮演的关键角色，这种对专家观点的关注似乎是再合适不过的了。同时，我想通过考察“认知共同体”概念在解释这些专家圈子内的动态方面的潜力，为这一学术增添一些新的东西。在有关金融治理中“专长政治”的文献中，这一概念相对被忽视了，尽管它有可能通过强调规范、原则信念、共同的因果信念和共同的有效性概念在影响这些网络中的概念选择和知识和政策议程的产生方面的作用，来提高我们对概念动态的理解。我特别感兴趣的是检查最近一些学术观点的论点，即现有框架可能过于强调专家的议程设置功能，从而忽视了更连续和渐进的影响形式。在这方面，宏观审慎政策似乎是最有可能的情况，因为即使在其迅速扩散十年后，关键的概念、衡量标准和目标仍然不明确，并受到重大辩论，而那些与辩论关系最密切的专家在中央银行和国际机构中占据着关键的机构职位。这使得它成为研究专家是否、如何以及通过哪些机制继续对政策施加影响，并有望产生新的理论见解的理想案例。为此，过程跟踪，特别是最近在“想法”的过程跟踪方面的进展，特别有用。同时，我将对政策文件、蓝图、演讲、观点文章和会议记录进行广泛的分析，以检查不同想法和论点的内在逻辑，并确定在多大程度上思想之争的结果确实能够解释我的中心研究问题。特别是，我感兴趣的是，一种定义和衡量干预金融市场“成本和收益”的政治，一种对自动稳定器的规范偏好和对自由裁量权的反对，以及一种让负责宏观审慎政策的央行去政治化的尝试，能否解释为何缺乏激进的改革和干预。