Who controls global policy debates on shadow banking regulation? We show how experts secured control over how issues in shadow banking regulation are treated by examining the policy recommendations of the Bank of International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund and the Financial Stability Board. The evidence suggests that IO experts embedded a bland reformism opposed to both strong and 'light touch' regulation at the core of the emerging regulatory regime. Technocrats reinforced each other's expertise, excluded some potential competitors (legal scholars), coopted others (select Fed and elite academic economists), and deployed measurement, mandate, and status strategies to assert issue control. In the field of shadow banking regulation, academic economists' influence came from their credibility as arbitrageurs between several professional fields rather than their intellectual output. The findings have important implications for how we study the relationship between IO technocrats and experts from other professional fields.
With the advent of the electronic mail system in the 1970s, a new opportunity for direct marketing using unsolicited electronic mail became apparent. In 1978, Gary Thuerk compiled a list of those on the Arpanet and then sent out a huge mailing publicising Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC—now Compaq) systems. The reaction from the Defense Communications Agency (DCA), who ran Arpanet, was very negative, and it was this negative reaction that ensured that it was a long time before unsolicited e-mail was used again (Templeton, 2003). As long as the U.S. government controlled a major part of the backbone, most forms of commercial activity were forbidden (Hayes, 2003). However, in 1993, the Internet Network Information Center was privatized, and with no central government controls, spam, as it is now called, came into wider use. The term spam was taken from the Monty Python Flying Circus (a UK comedy group) and their comedy skit that featured the ironic spam song sung in praise of spam (luncheon meat)—“spam, spam, spam, lovely spam”—and it came to mean mail that was unsolicited. Conversely, the term ham came to mean e-mail that was wanted. Brad Templeton, a UseNet pioneer and chair of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has traced the first usage of the term spam back to MUDs (Multi User Dungeons), or real-time multi-person shared environment, and the MUD community. These groups introduced the term spam to the early chat rooms (Internet Relay Chats). The first major UseNet (the world’s largest online conferencing system) spam sent in January 1994 and was a religious posting: “Global alert for all: Jesus is coming soon.” The term spam was more broadly popularised in April 1994, when two lawyers, Canter and Siegel from Arizona, posted a message that advertized their information and legal services for immigrants applying for the U.S. Green Card scheme. The message was posted to every newsgroup on UseNet, and after this incident, the term spam became synonymous with junk or unsolicited e-mail. Spam spread quickly among the UseNet groups who were easy targets for spammers simply because the e-mail addresses of members were widely available (Templeton, 2003).
Minors who commit crimes are commonly placed under the jurisdiction of the state or federal juvenile justice system. Because juvenile status is statutorily rather than constitutionally mandated, juvenile courts may waive jurisdiction over young offenders, sending them to the adult criminal courts for trial. 1 A juvenile waiver hearing is an individualized determination of whether jurisdiction over a given child should be ceded to adult criminal court. The juvenile court considers a wide variety of criteria in making this decision, including the child's age and criminal history, the severity of the offense, and the likelihood of successful rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system. In seeking waiver, the state often attempts to introduce a juvenile's own statements as evidence of her maturity or unamenability to treatment in the juvenile system. However, the use of these statements, which range from confessions to police at the time of arrest to statements made at court-ordered psychiatric evaluations, threatens juveniles' Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. While the Supreme Court has delineated the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination at adult criminal trials 2 and at juvenile delinquency hearings, 3 there has been no such resolut A.B. 1992, Dartmouth College; J.D. Candidate 1995, The University of Chicago. ' States use a variety of terms in reference to this process. While this Comment refers to the change in jurisdiction as waiver, it is also known as transfer, diversion, or certification. 2 See generally Fisher v United States, 425 US 391 (1976) (Fifth Amendment does not protect against compelled document production when request is made to party's attorney); Schmerber v California, 384 US 757 (1966) (compelled withdrawal of blood for blood-alcohol testing does not implicate Fifth Amendment); Griffin v California, 380 US 609 (1965) (Fifth Amendment prohibits state prosecutor's comments that defendant's silence suggests guilt); Hoffman v United States, 341 US 479 (1951) (extending Fifth Amendment privilege to answers that are merely links in an incriminating chain of evidence). ' See In re Gault, 387 US 1 (1967) (noting that privilege against self-incrimination should be applicable to juveniles as well as adults).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.