Premium
Paradoxes and Failures: ‘New Governance’ Techniques and the Financial Crisis
Author(s) -
Black Julia
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
the modern law review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.37
H-Index - 22
eISSN - 1468-2230
pISSN - 0026-7961
DOI - 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2012.00936.x
Subject(s) - corporate governance , legitimacy , argument (complex analysis) , financial crisis , adversarial system , control (management) , business , accounting , political science , law and economics , public relations , economics , finance , management , law , macroeconomics , biochemistry , chemistry , politics
This article examines the performance of four ‘new governance’ techniques of regulation in the period leading up to the financial crisis: principles based regulation, risk based regulation, meta‐regulation and enrolment. These techniques have been advocated on the basis that they are responsive, flexible, and in enrolling others in the regulatory project thereby expand its capacity, and even its legitimacy. However, experience in the crisis revealed that in their implementation they can be out of touch or indulgent, focus heavily on auditable systems and processes, and that in enrolling others they can increase vulnerabilities and the potential for negative endogenous effects. The argument is not that there should be a return to adversarial ‘command and control’ regulation, rather that experience of these strategies in the crisis suggests a need to understand in greater depth the refractive effects of the organisational, technical/functional and cognitive dimensions of regulatory governance, if we are to understand and adapt its performance in different contexts.