2010
DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2010.499239
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Completing the single market in financial services: the politics of competing advocacy coalitions

Abstract: Why has the completion of the single market in financial services proved so difficult and time consuming? This paper addresses this question by applying a revised version of the 'advocacy coalition framework', modified so as to incorporate the role of material interests as well as ideas, to the empirical record of the policy-making processes of key pieces of legislation dealing with securities trading in the EU.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
39
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 73 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
1
39
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, it attaches less importance to the distinction between labour/social democrats and right-wing/conservative governments as compared to the seminal works of Hopner (2003) and Deeg (2005). It rather stresses the difference between a 'marketshaping' approach, leaning towards a regulatory intervention of public authorities in the field of corporate accountability, and a 'light touch', 'market-making' approach, in which private organisations and professional bodies are setting the standards (on the difference between the two and its relevance to EU policies see Quaglia 2010). In rather stylised terms, which would need further analyses at the EU, national and global levels, the article maintains that the EU directive was supported by a broadening section of investors, together with a network of NGOs and parts of the European trade unions (TUs).…”
Section: Coalitions and Conflicts Behind The Eu Directive On Non-finamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, it attaches less importance to the distinction between labour/social democrats and right-wing/conservative governments as compared to the seminal works of Hopner (2003) and Deeg (2005). It rather stresses the difference between a 'marketshaping' approach, leaning towards a regulatory intervention of public authorities in the field of corporate accountability, and a 'light touch', 'market-making' approach, in which private organisations and professional bodies are setting the standards (on the difference between the two and its relevance to EU policies see Quaglia 2010). In rather stylised terms, which would need further analyses at the EU, national and global levels, the article maintains that the EU directive was supported by a broadening section of investors, together with a network of NGOs and parts of the European trade unions (TUs).…”
Section: Coalitions and Conflicts Behind The Eu Directive On Non-finamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In negotiations at the EU level, governments defend these interests. Quaglia (2010) amends the 'materialist' approach by integrating ideas into the framework. In the process of financial market integration, competing advocacy coalitions are organized around two belief systems: a market shaping or a market friendly approach.…”
Section: Perspectives On European Financial Market Integrationmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…One notable case was the most important directive passed concerning the regulation of securities markets in the EU over the last decade, namely the Markets in Financial Instruments directive (MiFID) (see Mu¨gge 2007;Macartney 2009). In the negotiations of the MiFID two main coalitions of policymakers and stakeholders, the Northern coalition, led by the United Kingdom and the Southern coalition, led by France, competed against each other in order to upload their preferred regulatory template at the EU level (Quaglia, 2008b). In that case, unlike in the insurance sector, the EU regulatory process had to reconcile very different views about how to regulate securities markets in the EU.…”
Section: Quagliamentioning
confidence: 99%