English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Report

Beyond Ideological Battles: A Strategic Analysis of Hedge Fund Regulation in Europe

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons41335

Woll,  Cornelia
Max Planck Sciences Po Center on Coping with Instability in Market Societies (MaxPo), MPI for the Study of Societies, Max Planck Society;

Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)

mpifg_ap11_20.pdf
(Any fulltext), 456KB

Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Woll, C.(2011). Beyond Ideological Battles: A Strategic Analysis of Hedge Fund Regulation in Europe.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-000F-8845-A
Abstract
The highly politicized debate about the recent Alternative Investment Fund Manager (AIFM) Directive of the European Union led many observers to suspect an ideological battle between countries seeking to impose transnational regulation on financial service industries such as hedge funds and liberal market economies insisting on the benefits of market discipline in order to protect their financial centers. The battle that appeared to particularly pit France against the United Kingdom can thus be interpreted as an example of a regulatory paradigm shift in the aftermath of the crisis. This article cautions against such an ideas-centered account of financial regulation and points to the economic interests that drove the French and German agendas. However, contrary to the assumptions of traditional political economy approaches, national preferences were not simply defined by the aggregate of a country’s economic interests. Rather, industry success in shaping government positions on alternative investment regulation crucially depended on how a given industry fit into the government’s overarching geo-political agenda. By highlighting this feedback loop between government strategy and industry lobbying, the paper proposes a strategic analysis of financial regulation, as opposed to accounts that consider positions to be pre-determined by ideas or socio-economic structures. La polémique autour de la directive européenne sur les fonds d’investissement alternatif (AIFM) est souvent citée comme exemple d’une bataille idéologique. D’un côté, on trouve les pays membre qui insistent sur une réglementation accrue des marchés financiers, en particulier la France, de l’autre côté, ceux qui souhaitent préserver le marché libre, notamment le Royaume Uni. Nous montrons les limites des récits qui s’intéressent uniquement aux paradigmes de la réglementation financière après la crise et insistons sur les intérêts économiques derrière les différentes positions. En revanche, les positions nationales ne doivent pas être comprises comme simple agrégat des positions de l’industrie financière d’un pays. Le succès de leur lobbying dépend en très grande partie de la compatibilité des demandes particulières avec la stratégie géopolitique du gouvernement. L’objectif de l’article est ainsi de tracer les boucles de rétroaction entre les stratégies des gouvernements et le lobbying de l’industrie financière d’un pays, afin de proposer une analyse stratégique de la négociation intergouvernementale.