This paper examines the reform of global financial governance mechanism after the global financial crisis in 2008.
The research argues that three different levels of reform could be identified in order to get a thorough understanding of the governance reform during the last ten years, i.e. regulatory level, institutional level, and structural level, each of which assumes different causes to the financial crisis and prescriptions to the problematic governance mechanism reform.
Regulatory reform supporters called for tightening up banking and financial supervision by adopting macro-prudential policy guideline, whereas institutionalists suggested a plurilateral approach, which aims at expanding the governance network further to include the most possibly diversified actors.
While both the regulatory and institutional reform views focused on improving the existing system, structural reform proponents laid emphasis on the fundamental structural relations that constructed global financial governance. Structural reformers argue that it was the underlying unequal power distribution that led to the unleashing of the potential dangers lying in the Washington consensus which caused severe damage after the financial crisis.
The paper reviews the two stages of global financial mechanism reform after 2008 China using the analytical framework and found that the first reform stage focused mainly on regulatory and institutional reform, while the second stage was more structure-oriented.
在國際關係的研究領域中，不論是國家中心論或是以體系為主的體系理論，都以國家為研究的客體。伴隨著全球化浪潮，「全球治理」概念的出現，表明以國家為主的國際政治體系已無法解決國際環境的複雜變化，須藉助許多跨國性次級團體來共同治理。有鑑於此，新現實主義、新自由主義、 與建構主義中以國家為給定對象的國際關係主流理論，遇到解釋上的局限， 需要建構一套新的本體論與知識論，俾有效解釋在國際政治中逐漸呈現的多元行為體治理現象。本文認為國際關係理論面臨三個問題的挑戰:一、如何解..
Theories of international relations(IR), whether through state-centric or systemic approach, put states as centers of research objectives. With trending globalization, the advent of the global governance concepts manifests that a state-focused international political system without transnational sub-political groups has failed to respond to complex changes in the international environment. Accordingly, this challenges neo-realism, neo- liberalism, and constructivism, which focus on the state-centric approach and experience ex..
Please enter the journal title, keywords, and author-related information you want to query.