Rules that Many Use: Standards and Global Regulation

Global regulation increasingly relies on alternatives to legal rules, variously termed "soft law,""best-practice rules," or "standards." Such voluntary best-practice rules can be highly effective. Standards influence users by virtue of the expertise on which they are based and because of their enforcement by public and private actors. Standards globally proliferate because they are more compatible with regulatory autonomy of states than binding directives. When global standards are effective, the question of how to subject them to democratic control often arises. The prospects for holding global standard setters accountable largely depend on how decisions on standards are made. These insights are illustrated by examples of the global regulation of financial markets. The preliminary evidence suggests that standards need to be taken more seriously by students of global regulation.     

The abiding voter: The lengthy horizon of retrospective evaluations

Although the theory of retrospective voting receives wide support in the literature on voting behaviour, less agreement exists on voters’ time horizon when assessing the government's performance – that is, whether voters are myopic. Previous studies on voter myopia tend to focus on aggregate-level measures of the economy, or use an experimental approach. Using panel data, this article offers the first investigation into voter myopia that uses individual-level evaluations of government performance in a representative survey at several points during the electoral cycle. The study focuses on The Netherlands, but it also provide tests of the generalisability and robustness of the findings, and a replication in the American context. The results indicate that voter satisfaction early in the government's term adds to explaining incumbent voting. Thus, rather than the myopic voter, evidence is found of the abiding voter – steady at her or his post, evaluating government performance over a long length of time.     

Holding Global Regulators Accountable: The Case of Credit Rating Agencies

Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs) are private nonmajoritarian regulators (NMRs) of international capital markets. Ratings of creditworthiness are ubiquitous in financial markets, and in this way they exercise considerable control over the flow of credit. CRAs entail a puzzle for the question of the legitimacy of global regulation. As profit seeking firms, they lack a formal element of coercion. Yet, CRAs are often criticized for wielding illegitimate power. Furthermore, the broad demand for accountability has not had a great effect on how CRAs operate. Thus, there is a persistent mismatch between demand and supply of accountability, an "accountability gap." By analyzing the accountability gap, this article seeks to enhance the understanding of the nature and the scope of the legitimacy problems of global NMRs. CRAs suggest that the legitimacy problems of global governance extend beyond formal NMRs to informal NMRs and that solutions sometimes are elusive.