International Standards for CCPs

Author(s):  
Lucia Quaglia

After the crisis, following the mandatory central clearing of derivatives, CCPs became crucial nodes of the financial system. Thus, new rules to improve their resilience, recovery, and resolution were issued. Initially, the division of work amongst international standard-setting bodies was unclear and international standards on CCPs lacked granularity. Subsequently, the division of work was clarified and relatively more precise, stringent, and consistent rules on CCPs were issued. The US and the UK were pace-setters internationally and partial first-movers domestically. The EU had preferences that were largely aligned with those of the US. Transgovernmental networks operating in international standard-setting bodies deployed formal and informal tools to promote regulatory consistency within the elemental regime on CCPs. Finally, financial interests mobilized in a variety of venues with a view towards shaping the content of the new standards on the basis of expected costs and benefits.

Author(s):  
Lucia Quaglia

The elemental regime on margins for derivatives not cleared through CCPs was added later on to the international regulatory agenda. The US was a pace-setter at the international level and a first-mover at the domestic level in promoting relatively precise, stringent and consistent margin requirements. The EU supported the US international standard-setting efforts, but adopted domestic regulation after international rules were set. There were no foot-draggers, even though several jurisdictions on the fringe were reluctant followers. Domestic regulators gathered in international standard-setting bodies facilitated the ironing out of differences amongst and within jurisdictions. Transgovernmental networks also fostered rule consistency, helping to manage the regime complexity resulting from several interlinked elemental regimes on derivatives. Margins were heavily contested by the financial industry, which mobilized to make them less precise and stringent. Private actors also urged regulators to consider this reform in conjunction with other post-crisis standards, notably, capital requirements.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 214-240
Author(s):  
Rob J Gruijters ◽  
Tak Wing Chan ◽  
John Ermisch

Despite an impressive rise in school enrolment rates over the past few decades, there are concerns about growing inequality of educational opportunity in China. In this article, we examine the level and trend of educational mobility in China, and compare them to the situation in Germany, the Netherlands, the UK and the USA. Educational mobility is defined as the association between parents’ and children’s educational attainment. We show that China’s economic boom has been accompanied by a large decline in relative educational mobility chances, as measured by odds ratios. To elaborate, relative rates of educational mobility in China were, by international standards, quite high for those who grew up under state socialism. For the most recent cohorts, however, educational mobility rates have dropped to levels that are comparable to those of European countries, although they are still higher than the US level.


2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 168-170
Author(s):  
Robin Blake

This virtual event was held as a follow-up to the inaugural Biopesticide Summit and Exhibition at Swansea University in July 2019, and postponed in 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Sarah Harding, Communication Director at The World BioProtection Forum (WBF) & Biopesticide Summit opened the event with a few brief words of introduction before handing over to Dr Minshad Ansari, Chairman of the WBF.<br/> Dr Ansari was delighted with the more than 150 attendees already logged into the event with over 300 registered. The WBF was created in 2019 as a non-profit organization to bring together industry and academia for innovation. Dr Ansari thanked the event's supporters – AgBio, Agri Life, Bayer, Bionema, Ecolibrium Biologicals, Koppert Biological Systems, Harry Butler Institute and Sri BioAesthetics, as well as the media partners including Outlooks on Pest Management. He reiterated the need for regulatory reform due to removal of chemical pesticides, demands for organic food, limited biopesticide products registered and a lengthy and costly biopesticide registration process (5 years in EU where there are just 60 products available vs. 2.1 years in USA and where over 200 products are already available on market). The US is clearly in a much better place; in Europe, it is too expensive for SMEs and little progress has been made despite the work of the IBMA (International Biocontrol Manufacturers Association) and others. With respect to the biopesticides market share (value) by region, Europe has 27.7% market share (21.3% CAGR) and yet within UK, the CAGR is limited (unlike other European countries) – there are few products available in the market compared to chemical pesticides. The current biopesticide regulation is complex and not fit for purpose (compare 60 vs 200). Industry is facing a serious problem with pest control following the removal of some chemical pesticides, e.g.European cranefly which has caused many problems to the turf industry and has been impacted by the removal of chlorpyrifos. However, Brexit provides opportunities in the UK through government plans to "Build Back Better" by supporting Green Tech. At the EU level, the EU has committed to reducing use of pesticides by 50% (equating to 505 products) by 2030 so there are opportunities here for biopesticides to fill the market.<br/> Dr Ansari finished his introduction by restating the objectives for the meeting: for the speakers to present and debate the need for reform, their visions for a successful regulatory system, and how the WBF is working towards process reform in UK biopesticide regulation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 384 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-118
Author(s):  
Y. E. Putihin ◽  
Y. N. Akimova ◽  
N. V. Ostrovskaya ◽  
I. A. Manvelova ◽  
E. V. Negashev

International Accounting Practice Accounting is multifaceted and heterogeneous. First distinguish between international standards and national standards. National accounting standards for each country is being developed independently. The leading countries in the field of national accounting standards are the United Kingdom and the United States, which is determined by the role of these countries in international financial markets. In different countries, national accounting standards are called differently; in addition, various bodies are involved in their development: in some these are state bodies, in other countries professional organizations. International accounting standards are implemented and developed at 2 levels: international, global and regional. In the regional aspect, the main role belongs to the EU Accounting Commission, which regulates these matters in the EU countries. World standards are developed by several organizations: International Federation of Accountants, Committee on International Accounting Standards, Intergovernmental Group of Experts on International Standards Reporting and Accounting Center for Transnational United Nations Corporation, Economic development and cooperation. There is a great variety of accounting systems around the world. The differences between them are explained mainly by the different business environments in which they operate. Among many classifications, which are based on various principles, two main classifications can be distinguished. The first one is based on the “geographical” principle, i.e.: the UK-US system, the Continental system, the Latin American system. In the second classification, systems are clustered based on their typical properties and hierarchy. The upper level defines the objectives that the accounting system focuses on. Next, systems are rated based on whether the state insists on applying the theoretical approach or the actual legislative requirements and business needs. It might be difficult to classify a system as belonging to a specific group if the country’s accounting system is unstable. Thus, in the 60s of the 20th century, New Zealand started to separate from the UK, although many provisions of its accounting system were taken directly from the standards developed by the English Institute of Financial Accountants. In view of the existing challenges and various approaches to the classification of national accounting systems, the importance of such classification can hardly be overestimated. The proximity of national accounting systems in countries that belong to the same model suggests the possibility of harmonization of accounting principles at the international level. Based on the above: - the possibility of grouping national accounting systems into clusters makes it possible to level out the differences between them during standardization; - the convergence of economies of different countries due to the globalization of the world economy contributes to the unification of accounting principles at the global level.


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 217-251
Author(s):  
Valentina Covolo

Abstract Combatting criminal misuse of cryptocurrencies was at the core of the fatf agenda under the US Presidency, culminating in June 2019 with the thorough extension of international standards against money laundering over virtual assets’ markets. This echoed the first legislative measure regulating virtual currencies adopted by the EU a year before. Directive 2018/843, better known as the 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive, fails however to address key technological breakthroughs and new business models, which continuously make the ever-growing and fast-paced crypto economy evolve. Against this background, the present contribution investigates shortfalls and challenges that lay ahead in the light of the new fatf Recommendations. It ultimately argues that the preventive anti-money laundering measures cannot dispense with the establishment of a cross-border integrated supervisory and enforcement system.


Author(s):  
Lucia Quaglia

This chapter outlines the theoretical and empirical puzzles that inform the book, its objectives, overall argument, and structure. This research sets out to explain the post-crisis international regulation of derivatives markets. In particular, it addresses three interconnected questions. What factors drove international standard-setting concerning derivatives post-crisis? Why did international regime complexity emerge? How was it managed and with what outcomes? The focus of this volume is on international standards, not the domestic implementation of these standards, or other domestic regulatory reforms concerning derivatives. This chapter also outlines the book’s theoretical and empirical contributions to the international relations literature on regime complexity and the international political economy literature on the regulation of finance.


2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 719-743 ◽  
Author(s):  
GARY FOOKS ◽  
TOM MILLS

AbstractEuropean Union (EU) law-making has played a key role in promoting social equity in the UK through safer working conditions, enhanced rights for workers, and by reducing environmental pollution. Concerns over its effect on business competitiveness have long been a major driver of Euroscepticism, underpinning criticism of the EU by influential opinion formers within British conservatism. The Leave Campaign argued that EU laws damage the UK economy by imposing unnecessary costs on British business, claiming that EU regulations cost the UK economy £33.3 billion per year. This paper examines the reliability of, and assumptions that underpin, aggregated estimates of the costs and benefits of EU-derived regulation, and considers how the economisation of public policy influences understanding of the social value of regulation. It brings together the findings of studies that have evaluated the accuracy of the estimated costs and benefits in formal impact assessments and analyses impact assessments of EU-derived policy instruments aimed at regulating working conditions. Our findings suggest that aggregated estimates represent poor guides to understanding the social costs and benefits of social regulation and highlight the value of discarding impact assessment estimates of costs and benefits in the context of efforts to shape social policy post-Brexit.


Author(s):  
W.E Leithead

From its rebirth in the early 1980s, the rate of development of wind energy has been dramatic. Today, other than hydropower, it is the most important of the renewable sources of power. The UK Government and the EU Commission have adopted targets for renewable energy generation of 10 and 12% of consumption, respectively. Much of this, by necessity, must be met by wind energy. The US Department of Energy has set a goal of 6% of electricity supply from wind energy by 2020. For this potential to be fully realized, several aspects, related to public acceptance, and technical issues, related to the expected increase in penetration on the electricity network and the current drive towards larger wind turbines, need to be resolved. Nevertheless, these challenges will be met and wind energy will, very likely, become increasingly important over the next two decades. An overview of the technology is presented.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document