正在确认阅读权限…
The Institutional Drift Behind 'Self-Regulating' Markets — When Delegation Masks Accountability Gaps
‘自我调节’市场的制度性漂移——当权力下放掩盖了问责缺口
-
Markets labeled 'self-regulating' rarely operate without embedded institutional scaffolding, often invisible to participants.标榜‘自律’的市场，往往依赖于参与者难以察觉的制度性支撑。
-
Regulatory delegation to industry bodies frequently reduces transparency while preserving formal compliance appearances.将监管权委托给行业组织，常在维持形式合规的同时削弱透明度。
-
This drift occurs not through deliberate evasion but via incremental normalization of judgmental discretion.这种偏离并非源于刻意规避，而是判断裁量权被渐进式地常态化。
-
Firms gain interpretive latitude on standards like 'fair pricing' or 'reasonable risk disclosure'.企业对‘公平定价’或‘合理风险披露’等标准获得解释弹性。
-
Over time, such flexibility erodes shared benchmarks for market integrity and public trust.久而久之，此类弹性侵蚀了市场诚信与公众信任的共同基准。
-
Independent oversight becomes technically redundant even as systemic vulnerabilities compound unnoticed.独立监督在技术上变得冗余，而系统性风险却悄然累积。
-
Empirical studies show delegated regimes correlate with slower crisis detection and asymmetric penalty enforcement.实证研究表明，委托监管模式常伴随危机识别滞后与处罚执行不公。
-
The illusion of autonomy obscures who ultimately bears residual responsibility for systemic failure.自治假象掩盖了系统性失败最终由谁承担剩余责任。
-
Reasserting accountability requires redefining 'regulatory capture' beyond corruption to include epistemic capture.重申问责需重新定义‘监管俘获’——不仅限于腐败，更包括认知俘获。
-
Legal frameworks must mandate periodic recalibration of delegated authority against evolving social priorities.法律框架须强制要求定期依据社会优先事项校准委托权限。
-
Without such mechanisms, 'self-regulation' functions less as efficiency and more as deferred governance.若无此类机制，‘自律’实则非提效，而是延宕治理。
-
This structural ambiguity persists precisely because it serves multiple stakeholders — except the public.这种结构性模糊持续存在，恰因它服务于多方利益——唯独不包括公众。