While the conditions for North Koreans are troubling, Americans have a similar height gap to worry about, and it also appears to be due to a lower standard of living, poor health care and inadequate nutrition. Last summer, the journal Social Science Quarterly reported that Americans are, quite literally, falling short of Europeans. In 1880, Americans were the tallest people in the world. But by 2000, American men, at an average height of 5-feet-10.5-inches, ranked 9th, and women, at about 5-feet-5-inches, fell to 15th. Several Northern European countries rank the highest in height, with the Dutch coming in first, at just over 6 feet for the men and 5-feet-7-inches for the women.

The height gap between Americans and Northern Europeans can’t be explained by an influx of short immigrants. Experts say the United States takes in too few immigrants to account for the disparity, and the height statistics cited in the article include only English-speaking native-born Americans, and don’t include people of Asian and Hispanic descent.

The real answer may be that Northern European countries do a better job of spreading the wealth and taking care of their children.

It would be interesting to run a simple regression on the prediction capability of average male height on GDP/capita. A short search on the internet only gave this small graph.

• IMF: “ABS in Emerging Markets: Recent Trends and Policy Implications”
• Capital Markets Consultative Group (CMCG): Study about the Impediments to development of emerging capital markets
• IMF: “Derivatives in Emerging Markets: Recent Trends and Policy Implications for Capital Markets”
• IMF and World Bank: Study about Economic Transmission Mechanisms and the impact of the current turmoil on the local bond markets.
• Working Group on Securities Databases: Report about September 2007 Meeting
• World Bank: Study about Regionalisation of East-African Securities

It certainly makes sense to involve private bodies and the representatives of business when creating standards. The technical expertise of these bodies is valuable for ensuring that the goals of the regulation are feasible and achievable.

However, standards are not neutral, they not only provide a public good of a market framework which lowers transaction costs and deters fraudulent behaviour, they also serve those who are setting the standards. One interest of a private body could be to exclude competitors from gaining market share by obligating standards which these competitors can’t fulfill.

In the debate on the causes of the sub-prime crisis, media and academia are discussiong the incentives set by standards. They claim that Basel II has encouraged pro-cyclicality of Bank lending, or that reliance on Credit Rating Agencies in regulation has reduced the banks effort to conduct their own diligent risk management. The overall criticism is levered at governments, central banks and regulators for setting up the wrong system of financial regulation.

Attached to this criticism is the challenge that the current system of co-ordinating financial regulation is not working. Calls for a World Financial Architecture (see book by John Eatwell and others) are being heard.

However, it is often ignored that for standards to be functional, the private sector needs to be a consistent advocator of good standards. This should be reflected in a financial architecture which involves the private sectors in the crucial decisions on standard-setting, impact assessment, implementation and enforcement. Such an involvement is only possible if the private sector can give a coherent response to the demand for consultation coming from the public sector.

What is most striking is that the private sector does not speak with one voice. With ICMA, SIFMA and the IIF there are three private institutions speaking on behalf of the capital market. The G30, as a quasi corporative think-tank, ammends these views on serves as a coordinating body between highly influential individuals in the international financial institutions.

It would be interesting to have a closer look at this network of institutions and individuals:

• Which companies are members of which institution?
• Which individuals are members of which institution?
• Which companies and which individuals are key nodes in this network?
• Is there an overlap of tasks of the private institutions?
• Which formal and informal coordination groups exist between the bodies representing the views of the financial actors?

Would financial institutions disclose this kind of information?

• AIBD – Association of International Bond Dealers, now ICMA.
• BIS – Bank for International Settlements
• EBR – European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
• ECB – European Central Bank
• EIB – European Investment Bank
• ECSDA – European Central Securities Depositories Association
• IASB – International Accounting Standards Board
• IASC – International Accounting Standards Committee
• ICMA – International Capital Market Association
• IMF – International Monetary Fund
• ISSA – International Securities Services Association

More can be found here

The global financial architecture is very complex. Despite increasing liberalization of financial markets, increased system risk and integration of the economies through the financial markets in the last 30 years, there is no single World Financial Authority regulating the financial markets, as Alexander, Eatwell and Dhumale have suggested.

Instead what we have is a complicated system of co-ordination between regulators, intergovernmental co-operation and private standard-setting bodies creating “soft law” which then is adopted into legislation on the national and in case of the European Union on the transnational level.

Strangely enough, there is no single member-driven rule-based regime like in the fields of trade with the various trade rounds or environment with the Kyoto protocol, and no single dispute settlement emerged like the Dispute Settlement Body at the World Trade Organisation.

The Weak IMF, the strong BCBS

Even more puzzling is the fact that after the end of the Bretton-Woods-Regime of fixed exchange rates, the IMF did not develop into the center for political co-operation on financial matters as envisioned by the founders of the Bretton-Woods-Institution.

The joint expertise of the World Bank (which is really a development fund) and the IMF (which is really a bank for sovereign debt) would have made it an ideal combination to govern the worlds financial markets.

It is important to remember that Harry Dexter White, who negotiated on behalf of the US at Bretton Woods, wanted to abolish the Bank of Central Banks (the BIS in Basel) and give more power to the IMF to conduct monetary matters, but he never succeeded.

Not only did the IMF never fulfill its role as envisioned by Keynes and White, but after the end of the Bretton-Woods other key players re-surfaced in the turmoiled waters of financial regulation.

The Basel-System centered around the Bank for International Settlements gave birth to a transformed committee working on what turned out the most relevant dimension of global financial governance: banking supervision. The standards set by the BCBS have shaped the financial architecture more than any other standards set by the IMF or the OECD.

Evolution in Waves

Together with the BCBS, a plethora of private and public bodies emerged since the 1970ies. The evolution of this system was crisis driven, with the G7 Finance Ministers and the G10 Central Bank Governors setting the agenda.

From the middle of the 1970s onwards, several international organizations were founded and specialised in their respective part of the financial markets. The second half of the 1980s sees a further specialisation and the founding of specific task groups, like the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering.

The second half of the 1990s sees attempts to coordinate the various bodies more efficiently and approach problems such as threats to global financial stability. Since the turn of the millenium, the founding of several European bodies reflects the increased integration of the European Financial Markets.

There is no clear trend that financial regulation moves strictly in one way from the national to the international level. There is also no clear trend that national regulation moves from the strict functional approach of having supervisory agencies for the different type of actors in financial markets (banks, securities firms, insurers) to unified supervisory structure, although at least in some countries of the large G8 countries (UK, Germany, Japan) unified supervisory agencies have emerged (in countries like France, Italy and the US discussions about unifying the supervisory structures have started).

Explanations for the absence of institutionalism in financial governance

Financial governance consists of various dimensions:

1. Establishing a framework for the functioning of financial markets (for instance by establishing clearing and payment settlement systems).
2. Regulate, supervise and enforce regulation on market participants.
3. Improve competiveness of the financial markets by allowing new types of financial products.
4. Encourage market transparency and availability of information about markets.
5. React to financial crises, for instance with a Central Banks as a lender-of-last-ressort-function.
6. Restructure financial regulation to achieve financial stability, avoid contagion and reduce systemic risk.
7. Manage international macro-economic conditions through the intervention in exchange rate markets, managing national macro-economic through monetary and fiscal policy.
8. Discourage criminal activity in the financial markets, such as fraud, money laundering, financing of illegal activies (drugs and terrorism).

There are some explanations for this complex financial architecture with multiple power centers and various levels:

• The different aims of financial governance compete and sometimes contradict with each other. For instance macro-economic exchange rate management competes with the aim of financial stability if exchange-rate management needs to a currency crisis. Thus it is more rational to spread the various dimensions of financial governance to various bodies.
• The required level for market- or government-knowledge is very different for each of the dimension. For instance standard-setting and supervision needs a lot of technical information about the markets, therefore the BIS and Central Banks have a clear advantage because they operate in the markets. For other functions, for instance managing sovereign debt it is more important to have access to administrations and governments, therefore the IMF is better suited for that task.
• The different centers of financial governance reflect that financial architecture is not neutral, but it protects or damages interests of certain parts of the financial industry. For instance, the Basel-System can be seen in opposition to the Washington-based institutions reflecting different preferences of Europeans vs. Americans.
• Communication and coordination methods have changed how intergovernmental co-operation is conducted. An institution like the IMF would maybe look very different if founded today, but path-dependence restricts reform of institutions drastically.

A Research Outline

These explanations however offer only superficial insight into the dynamics of the financial architecture. Research on this topic will most likely have the following structure:

1. Defining Financial Governance
   • comparing several theoretical approaches from Political Economy and Political Science
   • outlining the difference between governance and government
   • outlining the difference between institutionalism and intergovernmentalism
2. Describing the Financial Architecture
   • Mapping the Financial Architecture
   • Describing the different power centers of financial governance
   • Describing the role of different organisations
   • Outlining co-operation mechanisms
   • Explaining the evolution of the current financial architecture
   • Discussing the various types of intergovermentalism in the current financial architecture
3. Case Studys
   • Banking Supervision
   • Money Laundering
   • Domestic Bonds
   • Hedge Fund Regulation
   • Currency Crises
   • Liquidity Crises
4. Proposals for Reform

How the global financial architecture evolved and how that influences the probability of crisis is very rarely discussed. In the analysis, the network structures of the global financial architecture is often forgotten.

The financial architecture is the system of public and private bodies which try to influence the regulation and standards required for financial markets to function. These are the the main types of actors in the financial architecture:

• Governments
  1. National governments, in particular finace ministers
  2. Informal meetings of government officials, such as the G7
  3. Supra-national government organisations, such as the EC
  4. International organisations representing the interests of governments, such as the IFM, World Bank, OECD.
• Central banks
  1. National Central Banks
  2. Informal Meeting of Central Bank Governors, such as the G10
  3. Supra-National Central Banks, like the ECB
  4. International Organisations of Central Banks, such as the BIS
• Regulators
  1. National Regulators responsible for
     • Banks and other financial intermediaries
     • Securities Firms and other type of trade of financial derivatives
     • Insurers
  2. Supra-National Meetings of Regulators
     1. with specific regulatory tasks, such as CEBS, CESR or CEIOPS
     2. with over-arching regulatory tasks
  3. International Meetings of Regulators
     1. with specific regulatory tasks, such as BCBS or IOSCO
     2. with over-arching regulatory tasks
• Private Bodies
  1. National Lobbying Group of Financial Institutions
  2. Surpa-National Lobbying Group of Financial Institutions
  3. International Lobbying Group of Financial Institutions
• Academic Consultancies and Think Tanks
• NGOs

The heuristics still has some weakness, but it helps to get a first picture of the financial architecture.

It is difficult to get a meaningful categorization of the private bodies because scope and membership of these private bodies are overlapping. Some of these organizations have identical aims but conflicting interests because they represent financial actors from different regional constituencies without however saying this in their statutes.

The categorization concerning NGOs and Academic Institutions lacks details because they are not the main actors in standard-setting, which is the second part of the financial architecture. So in addition to the actors, a list of standards would be needed which then can be attributed to particular organisations.

There are quite a few hybrid bodies and it is difficult to put them into the system above, such as the FSF. Also the disction between public and private organisations are not as sharps, because many public bodies have advisory councils consisting of representatives from banks or other large financial institutions.

The distinction between regulation, standards and lobbying is also quite blurred. In financial markets, self-regulation and technical standards agreed upon without government intervention play an important role. Regulation sometimes reflects either the attempts of the industry to self-regulate (for instance in Codes of Conduct) or serves the interests of certain part of the industry to keep their competitors out of certain market segments.

The Mapping-Project undertaken here aims to get a better understanding on how standards are produced, how the financial actors communicate and co-operate and how the financial architecture is being build.

Key Questions to be asked will be:

• Decision-Making Process
• Established by law or statute

In the post-Bretton-Woods-Era, banks and financial instutions have adopted innovative financial instruments to diversify earnings and to hedge against credit and market risk.
[Is this really the case? Wasn't it rather to hedge primarily against exchange rate movements?]
This has led to increased international banking activity and to the rise of multifunctional universal banks. These developments [produced] economic growth and development. But they also made financial institutions more dependent and exposed to systemic risk [...]. [T]hese forces of financial globalisation [led to] efforts to strengthen the institutional framework of financial regulation.

They define Global Financial Governance using three principles (p.15):

• Effectiveness in devising efficient regulatory standards and rules
• Accountability in the decision-making structure and chain of command
• Legitimacy (those subject to international regulatory standards have participated in creating them.

None of these three dimensions are particular to financial markets, so the authors introduce (p. 16) the concept of Systemic Risk, which is an underpricing of risk that spreads through the markets. According to the authors, financial regulation has the task to promote the efficient pricing of risks.

The authors follow (p. 17) the route of Political Economy (especially Douglas North) and Game Theory (especially Robert Axelrod) by looking at the role of institutions in financial regulation. However, in Game Theory and Political Economy, institutions are often defined as “regularities in social behavior” (Axelrod: 1984). Accordingly, international institutions can be defined as “a set of rules that govern the ways in which states cooperate and compete with each other” (Kahler: 1995).

Such a definition would also encompass all kinds of informal or tacit arrangements and agreements. But the authors add a legall dimension to their definition of International Financial Institutions (IFIs). Applying the concept of an institution to the current financial architecture, the authors state “international public- and private sector bodies that are involved in setting standards and rules to govern financial markets” (p. 17) have been created. In other words, the authors use the concept of “institution” dynamically: regularities of behaviour will lead to a set of rules which in turn create a public or private body receiving the mandate to create further rules.

Normally, “global governance” is defined in opposition to “global government”: in the absence of any clear-cut global institutions to act as legislative, executive and judiciary, states create binding international rules. “Global governance” is the process of creating “global institutions” without a “global government”.

The authors however chose to discuss the shortcomings of “Global Governance” in a principal-agent-framework through the “creation and operation of rules at [international] level through the involving transnational and subnational actors” (p. 18). These rules are intended to avoid systemic risk and create financial stability, a “public good [which] will never be provided adequately by the market without regulatory intervention” (p. 18).

Despite their economic background, the authors interestingly seem to have a different notion of “public good” than often used in economic textbooks. Normally, a public good is a non-rival, non-excludable good which means that everybody can have access to it and consuming the good does not diminish the possibility of other users to access it. Yet there are some arguments why financial stability does not necessarily need public regulatory intervention, and even with public regulatory intervention is not necessarily a non-excludable good.

The authors definition of “financial system” clearly shows the ambiguity of having to use a different understanding of a public good. They define a financial system (p. 20) through:

1. the extent of intregation of relevant financial sectors
2. the scope and design of financial regulation and legislation

The authors would hopefully agree that in this sense of financial governance, financial stability becomes a public good for a certain financial systems that are defined through integration and legislation. Global financial governance is providing a public good of financial stability through global integration and global legislation (for instance by setting standards).

In the traditional meaning, a public good does not necessarily need public intervention or regulation, it can be provided by markets if some market participants are willing to bear the costs. In fact, throughout modern history, financial stability has been provided by market participants as often as by governments. For instance, before the introduction of the US Federal Reserve Bank, large banks such as JP Morgan acted as Lender of last ressort when other systemically important banks were threatened to fail.

Financial stability is also not “non-excludable”. Even in globalized financial markets financial stability can be restricted to certain legislations. Admittedly, financial stability needs to provided on the global level to be effective because contagion mechanisms can undermine the efforts of creating zones of financial stability. Financial stability is not a black-and-white-public good, which can only be provided or not provided. Financial stability can be provided to a certain degree, and the choice of degree excludes certain actors in the financial systems.

He referred to the Wikipedia-Entry on Hedge Funds, but I found an even better description in Hulls book which also outlines the differences to mutual funds:

A hedge fund is similar to a mutual fund that it invests fund on behalf of clients. However, unlike mutual funds hedge funds are not required to register under U.S. Federal Securities Law. This is because they accept funds only from financially sophisticated individuals and do not publicly offer their securities.

Mutual funds are subject to regulation requiring that shares in the funds be fairly priced, that the shares be redeemable at any time, that investment policies be disclosed, that the use of leverage is limited, that no short positions be taken, and so on.

Hedge funds are relatively free of these regulations. This gives them a great deal of freedom develop unsophisticated, unconventional and proprietary investment strategies.

Financially sophisticated individuals – such as Bank Managers? Anyway, make a mental memo and check what regulation applies to Hedge Funds in the UK and in Germany.