STS: how come and why not
Legacy institutional designs not always helpful for future
A proposal to encourage 'simple' secutitisation (bundling and selling on of debt) is before the European Parliament. The proposal, as forwarded by the European Commission and the Council, raises question about the choice of securitisation (debt+complexity) as a ‘post-crisis’ policy instrument. And could Members of the European Parliament explain all this to citizens? (the “What Were You Thinking?” test). Answers depend on one’s preferred cognitive framing. This presentation moves on from the evaluative debate (securitisation is good/bad/it depends), to a historical enquiry into the 'post-crisis' re-emergence of securitisation. Taking an institutionalist approach, it identifies EU public institutions - not the market - as the re-starters of securitisation in Europe.
|EMCI Lunch-time meeting: Simple, transparent and standardised securitisation: is it possible?|
Dorn, N. (2016). STS: how come and why not. Presented at the EMCI Lunch-time meeting: Simple, transparent and standardised securitisation: is it possible?. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/93077