2008年全球金融危機爆發,重挫跨國資本市場;既有全球金融治理機制備受質疑之餘,也開啟2008年之後繁複的治理機制改革之路。
本研究認為2008年之後的全球金融治理機制改革有三個不同的層次:從規範、制度到結構,每個層次對於治理機制改革的重點議題與運作方式與目的各有不同的掌握。規範層次與制度層次的共同點在於皆強調在既有金融治理機制的改革;二者差別在於,規範層次專注於監理內容的補強,而制度層次側重行為者之間的互動方式與關係。較諸前二者,結構層次觀最為不同,且對既有體制的合理性有根本上的質疑。
本研究藉由三個改革層次分析架構,以瞭解全球金融治理機制變遷的全貌。同時並據以觀察全球金融治理機制兩個重整階段,其中第一階段主要聚焦於規範與制度層次的改革,第二階段則出現結構層次改革的挑戰與嘗試。
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..
本文的主要目的在瞭解台灣學者如何研究中國的多邊外交,研究成果展現了哪些特色,以及與國際學術界研究此一議題的連結。有關台灣學者研究成果收錄的範疇,則主要以2012年之後的著作為主。本文首先就中國官方及學術界,以及國際學術社群,針對中國多邊外交概念及理論架構的研究,以及政策與執行層面的分析,作一整理爬梳。接下來則探討台灣學者對中國多邊外交的總體性研究,作出了何種貢獻,其與國際關係中多邊外交分析傳統的關聯性如何。此外,本文也針對中國多邊外交的個案,探討台灣學者研究成果與國際學術界研究取向之異同..
The purposes of this study are to understand the approaches adopted by the Taiwanese scholars to research on China’s multilateral diplomacy, major characteristics of research results, and the linkages with the international academic society. The scope of analysis is limited to research publications after 2012. This paper first explores major theoretical concepts adopted by international and mainland Chinese academics on China’s multilateral diplomacy, followed by the analysis of research outputs on policy implementation and prac..
請輸入想查詢的期刊標題、關鍵字、作者相關資訊. Please enter the journal title, keywords, and author-related information you want to query.