Journal of Economic Geography
Journal of Economic Geography 11 (2011) pp. 87–117 doi:10.1093/jeg/lbq005 Advance Access Published on 26 March 2010Marketization through contestation: reconfiguring China?s financial markets through knowledge networks
Abstract
This article unpacks a particular case of market making by scrutinizing the richness of market meanings, the diversity of market actors and the contested nature of market knowledge and practices, in the context of developing banking regulation and financial services in China. Based on personal interviews and secondary data, it examines how China?s financial markets are reconfigured through heterogeneous knowledge networks ranging from mobile transmigrants and regulatory counterparts in other countries to different financial institutio ns within China. China?s WTO accession is not a straightforward liberalization of its banking sector but a contested process of negotiations between the Chinese government, regulatory bodies and foreign and domestic banks. This process of knowledge translation and conflict resolution is key to revealing the temporary and unstable character of markets and demonstrates how the entanglement of different knowledge networks opens up conjecturalm space for new forms of market meanings and practices.
Keywords: Markets, knowledge, banking, China
JEL classifications: G20, P30
Date submitted: 29 May 2009 Date accepted: 22 January 2010
1. Introduction
The instability of modern markets as seen in the recent financial crisis would come as no surprise to Karl Polanyi ([1944] 2001), who has long challenged the idea that there is anything ‘natural’or universal about markets and emphasized their cultural and political underpinnings. For Polanyi, the market, and the economy more broadly, is an‘instituted process’(Polanyi, [1957] 2001) anchored in other social institutions and practices. Written after the Great Depression in the 1930s, The Great Transformation exposes the myth of the self-sustaining and perpetuating market and highlights its complex nature and chaotic tendencies. In the dramatic months following the collapse of numerous American and European banks, the unprecedented intervention of their respective governments, and economic stimulus to avoid another Great Depression, these events seem to affirm the validity and continued relevance of Polanyi’s approach to the understanding of market, society and institutions. The recent financial crisis is also a timely reminder of the need to deconstruct essentialist and naturalized notions of markets and to critically reflect on the nature of capitalist accumulation over the past few decades and their geographically differentiated impacts (see, e.g. Brenner, 2008;Sidaway, 2008; Aalbers, 2009; Christophers, 2009; Engelen and Faulconbridge, 2009; French et al., 2009; Wo′jcik, 2009b).
If the recent financial crisis has raised important questions regarding the nature of markets, the spatial diffusion of different market knowledges, and the contingency of market structures and practices, the ongoing reconfiguration of China’s banking
market presents an opportunity to examine those questions. China’s prominence in the global economy is based on more than its growing economic strengths as an industrial powerhouse and consumer market; it is also developing its financial markets and systems in ways that are increasingly connected to global financial flows and practices, but also in distinctive forms. The resilient differences in the organization and trajectories of capitalist systems have been highlighted by an interdisciplinary group of scholars under the varieties of capitalism (V oC) rubric (Hall and Soskice, 2002). Since the late 1990s, the V oC school has established itself as a critical countercurrent to the universal market rationality of globalization narratives by pointing to resilient differences in the organization and trajectories of capitalist systems, regimes and models. The persistence of (national) varieties of capitalism is explained by the complex embedding of strategic behaviour of firms and other actors in a range of institutional environments, the establishment of institutionally mediated forms of comparative advantages, and the tendency for non-convergent, path dependent evolution in national regimes (Crouch and Streeck, 1997; Hollingsworth and Boyer, 1997; Hall and Soskice, 2001; Boyer, 2003; Campbell, 2004). However, the V oC approach has been criticized for its stylized dichotomy of liberal and coordinated capitalisms, methodological nationalism in its scale of analysis, institutional determinism that downplays cross-national influences, focus on systems and structures rather than individual actors and preoccupation with convergence and path dependency with limited theoretical scope for explaining institutional transformation and hybrid configurations (Peck and Theodore, 2007).
The shortcomings of this ‘model-based’approach have prompted many scholars to devise more nuanced conceptualization of capitalist diversity (Hay, 2004; Coates, 2005; Streeck and Thelen, 2005a; Deeg and Jackson, 2007). Streeck and Thelen (2005b), for example, criticize the concept of path dependency by conceptualizing institutional transformation as gradual and continuous and identifying forms of institutional change through displacement, layering, drift, conversion and exhaustion. The importance of agents is recognized by Crouch (2005) in his conceptualization of institutional entrepreneurs who are not only constrained, but also empowered by their local institutional environment to effect change. Financial geographers such as Clark and Wojcik (2007) and Dixon and Monk (2009) have also responded to the V oC literature through analyses of financial markets and corporate governance in Germany, the Netherlands and the UK by demonstrating that geographically and historically contingent institutional responses in those economies result in hybridity and layering rather than overly simplistic convergence or divergence, even in the face of increasing financialization of firms and accounting rules harmonization. While the V oC approach has proved valuable in establishing capitalist diversity across national regimes, its institutional approach has arguably been less useful in studying changing dynamics of economic structures and processes. Although criticisms regarding its deterministic and functionalistic tendencies are increasingly addressed by a number of scholars, the analytical monopoly of the nation/state remains the conventional practice even in the 88 studies highlighted above (for an exception, see Crouch, 2005). The methodological nationalism prevalent in the V oC approach and its focus on broad
institutional structures tends to overlooks the significance of actor-specific networks and practices in market formation and governance, constituted by individuals, firms and other institutions operating across national boundaries. As with the V oC approach, a network optic that analyses the motivations, rationale and actions of economic actors also seeks to understand the production, reconfiguration and diversity of market structures and practices but from a different angle that emphasizes actors and ‘grounded’processes. As such, the ‘bottom up’approach of analysing network dynamics can be a useful corrective to the more structural and path-dependent processes described in the more ‘top down’approach and national frame of analysis in the V oC literature. While acknowledging the contribution of the V oC school, I argue that the network approach offers a more transformative and dynamic approach to understanding capitalist development and change (H. Yeung, 2004, 2005) through more finely grained accounts of diverse actors, the range of spatial scales traversed and politics of negotiation between different interpretations of what constitutes appropriate or desirable market structures and practices.
In this article, I examine how financial markets in China are being constructed and reconfigured through heterogeneous knowledge networks operating across boundaries and scales. Conceptualizations of change over time have been a key feature of studies in financial geography, emphasizing geographically differentiated rates and nature of transformation and simultaneity of change and continuity. Whether they are studies that document changes in particular places such as the City of London (Pryke and Lee, 1995; Clark and O’Conner, 1997; Leyshon and Thrift, 1997), in systems such as pension funds and stock markets (Clark, 2000; Clark and Wo′jcik, 2007; Wo′jcik, 2009a), or in scales of financial practice and knowledge networks (French, 2000; Hall, 2007), the analytical approach has been to examine changing financial structures and practices while highlighting the influence of historical legacies and institutional structures, the entanglement of the global and the local, and elements of both continuity and change. In the context of developing new banking regulations and financial services in China, market ideas and practices are circulated through knowledge networks amongst regulators, banks, professional organizations and individual actors across national and sectoral boundaries. These networks are heterogeneous in that the exchange and circulation of knowledge is mediated through different market participants who hold different interpretations and agendas about possible forms of markets. This process of negotiation and conflict resolution between diverse actors forms the main focus of my empirical enquiry, in demonstrating how markets are ontologically unstable and constantly reconfigured through the entangling and disentangling of multiscalar knowledge networks.
My objective is not simply to provide an empirical study of the Chinese banking industry, although that is undoubtedly an important aim for a rapidly evolving sector of increasing global significance. Conceptually, I want to argue against a simplistic reading of market ideas and practices that might lead one to read the Chinese case as another example of ‘opening up’a banking sector to foreign investors, the top down transfer of‘best practices’from global centres of authority, and another victim to the bulldozer of neoliberal market logic. Instead, I demonstrate how market ideas and
practices are actively constructed and reconfigured within networks of knowledge and learning that circulate across boundaries and scales, such that new forms of knowledge are created in conjectural spaces of negotiations. I argue that it is by analysing the process of interaction and negotiation between diverse market actors that the richness and temporality of market meanings and practices are revealed and new forms of market knowledges are produced. This is done through the framework of knowledge networks that enables more dynamic and nuanced analysis compared to the more structural and ‘national-centric’V oC approach. In doing so, the article contributes both to economic geographical understandings of markets and the growing literature on knowledge practices in economic geography.
The rest of this article develops these arguments in five sections. Section 2 establishes the importance of deconstructing markets and explains how the framework of knowledge networks is used in this article to examine processes of marketization, by foregrounding the roles of market actors and practices. My methodological approach is also described here. Section 3 sets the context of recent changes in China’s banking sector, focusing on the changing roles of Chinese and foreign banks. In Section 4, I examine the processes through which knowledge networks are established in developing so-called best practices for China’s banking markets. These networks stretch across spatial scales and national boundaries and demonstrate the heterogeneity of knowledge flows and market actors (including firms, institutions and individual actors) that interact in the marketization of China’s banking sector. This is followed by a case study of China’s World Trade Organisation (WTO) membership and commitment to banking reforms in Section 5. While the liberalization of its banking sector could be seen as the adoption of a certain model of market capitalism as embodied by the WTO, actual implementation on the ground reveals the tangled and messy character of markets as regulators, foreign banks and domestic banks negotiate different interpretations of ‘fair competition’in the reconfiguration of China’s banking sector. The article concludes by evaluating the significance of these findings for the theoretical relevance of and future research on markets and the contribution of a knowledge network approach to understanding market transformation.
摘要
这篇文章将特定条件下的市场做通过审查这些丰富的含义、表现形式的多样性市场争夺市场性质的演员、市场知识和实践发展的背景下,在银行监管和金融服务在中国。基于个人访谈和二手资料,本论文则检验在中国金融市场是如何通过网络异构知识的集成性和管理从移动transmigrants与其他国家相比,中国内部不同的金融机构。中国加入世贸组织并不是一件简单的自由化进程,其银行体系的过程,而是一个有争议的中国政府之间的谈判,监管机构和国外和国内的银行。这个过程的知识和解决冲突的关键是翻译,揭示了暂时的和不稳定的特点,论证了如何市场不同的知识网络的纠缠态空间开辟了新形式的猜测市场的意义和实践。
关键词:市场、知识、银行、中国
分类:二十国集团JEL版,第131页
2009年5月29日提交日期:2010年1月至接受:22岁
1. 前言
现代市场的不稳定因素，例如：最近的金融危机的到来一点也不出乎卡尔·博兰尼([1944] 2001)的意料,长期以来他一直质疑“有什么事情的自然的或普遍的关于市场,强调他们的文化和政治基础。”的观点。在博兰尼看来，比市场、经济等更广泛的,是锚定在其他社会制度和实践的“过程”(博兰尼,[1957年]2001)。写在大萧条之后的二十世纪三十年代,大转型揭露了虚构的自给自足的和永恒的市场,并突出其复杂的性质和混乱的倾向。在戏剧性的几个月里, 众多美国和欧洲的银行破产,它们各自的政府对经济进行了空前的调控和经济刺激政策以避免另一次大萧条,这些事件似乎证实了博兰尼理解市场、社会和机构的方法的有效性和持续的相关性。最近的金融危机也是对解构实在论和市场自然化观念和批判的反应近两个世纪资本主义原始积累的性质或归化的概念一个及时的提醒,以批判性反思的市场和资本主义积累的本质在和他们的地域分化的影响的需求。
如果最近的金融危机已经引起了一些至关重要的问题。关于市场的本质、在空间扩散的不同的市场知识、对市场结构和意外事故和实践,正在不断重构中国银行业的市场提供了一个机会去检查这些问题。中国在全球经济中的崛起,是依靠超过其不断增长的经济实力,作为一个工业厂房和消费市场;它同时也在发展自己的金融市场和系统,并越来越多地以连接到全球金融流动和实践的方式,但也以独特的形式。在资本主义系统的组织和轨迹下的弹性差异已经被各种金融帝国(V oC)下的各个学科领域的学者所指明。20世纪90年代后期的V oC学校已经确立自己作为一个至关重要的逆流到世界市场全球化叙事的合理性的指向弹性差异在组织和资本主义制度的运动轨迹,政权和模式。坚持各种(国家)资本主义解释为复杂的嵌入一些战略性的行为的公司和其他的因素在一系列的制度环境,建立制度化介入的形式的比较优势，为不收敛路径依赖的进化在国家政权。然而,V oc的方法被指责其程序化了自由和协调资本主义的二分法,在它的分析中充斥着国家主义的分析方法.制度决定论,跨国的影响,将集中在系统和结构,而不是单独的演员和紧迫和收敛性和路径依赖理论范围有限,用于解释制度变迁和混合配置。
这个“基于模型”的不足已促使许多学者设计方法来更细致入微的概念化的资本主义的多样性。Streeck和Thelen,例如,批判路径依赖的概念被概念化转制度变迁是渐进的,连续的和识别形式的制度变迁通过位移、压条、漂移、转化和枯竭。代理人的重要性,被克劳奇(2005)所认识到,在他的概念化机构内的企业家,他们不仅被驱使去做,而且还被当地的环境机构授权去做出变化。金融地理学家如克拉克和Wojcik(2007年)和迪克森和Monk(2009)也回应了V oC文学通过对金融市场和公司治理在德国、荷兰和英国的地理和历史,证明在这些国家的经济制度反应导致早期分层而不是过于简单收敛或差异,即使是面对越来越多的financialization的公司和会计规则的进程。而VOC的方法被证明在建立不同国家政权资本主义的多样性方面很有价值,其制度分析的方法也对研究经济结构和变化过程很少有用的。虽然很多学者把它的确定性和实用主义倾向越来越多的写在批评上,对国家或州垄断的分析仍然是传统甚至在88项调查中体现的更为明显. 民族主义的方法论在V oa approach非常流行,它的重点在比较广泛的制度结构趋向于俯瞰着意义和实践actor-specific网络市场的形成和治理:由个人、企业和其他机构操作跨越国际边界。正如V oc approach,网络光学,网络的理论基础和行动
的动机,也要寻求理解经济活动主体的生产、重构和多样化的市场结构和习俗,但从一个不同的角度强调演员和“接地”过程。同样地,“自底向上”的做法,分析动态网络可以成为一个有用的矫正到更多的结构以及路径依赖过程中描述的,更多的自上而下的态度和国家框架的分析V oC文学。虽然承认V oc学校的贡献,我认为,“网络方法提供一种更容易转变和灵活的方法去理解资本主义的发展和变化,通过各种各样的演员,范围的空间尺度上走过与政治的谈判所包含的内容的不同的解释或可取的市场结构和适当的做法。
在这篇文章中,我研究如何在中国金融市场被建造和通过网络异构知识和重新配置操作横跨边界和规模。概念化已经随时间变化的一个重要特征的研究表明,强调经济地理学与自然地理分化率变化的转换与同时性和连续性的特点。无论他们是研究在某些特定地方文献的变化,如伦敦城的,在系统中,比如养老基金和股票市场,或者在大范围的金融实践和知识网络中,分析方法已被审查的财务结构和实践而改变历史遗产的突出的影响和制度结构、围绕全球和当地的,两者的连续性和改变元素。在此背景下研究开发新银行业法规和金融服务在中国市场,市场的基本理念与实践之间循环通过知识网络监管机构、银行、专业组织和个人的演员在国家以及部门界限。这些网络异构的交换和循环的知识,通过不同的市场参与者的介导持有不同的看法和议程关于可能形式的市场。这个谈判的过程及解决冲突的形式多样的演员构成了主要焦点在实证的询问,我已存在论的方式示范市场不稳定并不断重新配置通过链接和解决多标量的知识的网络。
我的目的不是简单的提供实证研究中国银行业,尽管这无疑是一种重要的目的是要快速进化的领域中日益加剧的全球意义。从概念上理解,我想反对过分单纯化的阅读的理念与实践,市场会让人读过中国一个银行业开放给外国投资者的转移另一个例子的范例,自顶向下“最优实践”从全球的中枢机关,和另一个自由主义市场逻辑的受害者。相反,我示范如何市场的基本理念与实践正积极建构并重新配置在网络知识和学习,越过边界和规模、流通,这样的新形式的知识被创造出来的猜测的空间的谈判。我认为它是通过分析与谈判的互动过程中不同市场的演员的丰富性和暂时性的意义和实践的市场被翻出来,新形式的市场知识进行制造。这项工作是通过知识网络的框架下,使得分析更具活力和细致入微的相比,更多的结构和“national-centric”的挥发性有机化合物的方法。在这一过程中,这篇文章的贡献对经济地理的理解都在市场和日益增长的文学实践在经济地理学知识。
这篇文章的其余部分通过五个部分论述这些观点。第二节阐述了解构市场的重要性，并且说明了框架知识网络在这篇文章如何用来检验市场化成功与否,以研究过程中,通过市场化的角色的演员引申市场和实践。我的方法也在这里进行了阐述。第3部分的文章主要阐述了中国银行业的角色转换,把焦点集中在改变中国和外国银行的职能。在第四节,为我国银行业市场,我检查过程建立了知识网络通过它在发展中所谓的最佳做法。这些网络穿越国界的空间尺度上,并演示了非均匀性的知识流动和市场参与者(包括企业、事业单位和个体户)作用在市场化进程的中国银行业。在第五部分,这是继以研究中国在世界贸易组织(WTO)的正式成员和承诺银行业改革一个案例。而其银行体系自由化可能会被看作是采用某市场资本主义所体现的WTO,具体落实在后揭示了错综复杂的市场和散乱的特性,外资银行监管和国内银行的谈判在“公平竞争的中国银行业重组”有不同的解释。
本文得出的结论通过评价的意义,这些研究结果为基础的理论的相关性及未来研究市场和贡献的知识网络的方法来了解市场的转变。
2. Unpacking markets through knowledge networks
Whether as an idea(l), a system or as economic practice, markets lay at the heart of capitalist societies, but they remain one of the most elusive concepts within social sciences. While economic geographers and other social scientists have been criticized for being slow in engaging with contemporary capitalism though the theoretical lens of the market (Sayer, 2001), an emerging literature in the social sciences has been engaging with the nature, construction and (re)production of markets by focusing on its inherently social nature. A key feature of this literature is the insistence that markets, like other institutions involved in economic practices, are not ontologically stable, unified, straightforward or entirely predictable (Larner, 2003; MacKenzie, 2005; Peck, 2005; Gibson-Graham, 2006; Fligstein and Dauter, 2007; Berndt and Boeckler, 2009); they can take on multiple forms and may have unexpected outcomes as different constituent actors (be they states, firms, institutions or individuals) interact in the active production of markets (ideas, practices, regulations) (French, 2000, 2002; Krippner, 2001; Knorr Cetina and Preda, 2005; MacKenzie, 2006; Hall, 2007). This sociological conception of economy views market relations as being socially embedded. As such, th‘economy’cannot be fully understood without examining the institutional and cultural parameters that constitutes its societal context, following Polanyi’s argument that ‘‘instead of the economy being embedded in social relations, social relations are embedded in the economic system’’(Polanyi, [1944] 2001: 60). The subsequent shifting of the embeddedness concept from its initial societal scale to a more actor-based account of economic life is often attributed to Mark Granovetter (1985, 1993), who argues for the embedding of economic actions and activities in social structures conceived as interpersonal networks. If economic action is conceived as taking place within the networks of social relations that make up the social structure, research should examine ‘‘to what extent economic activity is mediated by –or shall I say, ‘embedded in’–networks of personal relations’’(Granovetter, 1990, 96). Studies on the social construction and embeddedness of markets draw attention to the effects of social networks on economic decision making and the ways in which social and political power influence both economic action and the character of economic institutions.
Why is it important to clarify our conceptual treatment of markets as an instituted process, as embedded in socioeconomic relations and as the result of contestations? The rise of globalized neoliberal capitalism in the late twentieth century has been associated with quasi-hegemonic claims concerning markets as the most effective and progressive mechanism for delivering economic growth and prosperity. This discourse is legitimized by essentialist propositions of so-called market virtues (Table 1), which treats market exchange as the atomic structure of all economic processes and as the default form of economic coordination. This is problematic as other forms of organization become marginalized or treated as suboptimal exceptions (Sayer, 2003).
The essentialist treatment of markets is reflected in the prevalence of neoliberal dogmatism and fatalism, which are driving a particular model of economic development as the only workable model (see also Peck and Tickell, 2002). The assumed progression of market practices in socialist economies is one such example, in which proposals meant to effect a transition from planned to market economy foreclose considerations of alternative forms of exchange relations and structures and overlook the institutional contexts of markets across Eastern Europe and China (Lie, 1997; Murphy, 2003; Gibson-Graham, 2006; Swain, 2006). These problematics point to the need for unpacking the ‘essentialist’and ‘virtuous’market and to scrutinize its inner workings through its microstructures, institutions and constituent actors, in order to understand the spatially differentiated constructions of markets. In acknowledging that markets are the products of social relations that vary across time and space, our research needs to go beyond identifying different types of markets, to analyse how these markets are being constructed, regulated and reproduced. This is my objective in examining the construction and reconfiguration of China’s banking markets through knowledge networks.
2.1 Knowledge, knowing and translation
To examine how financial markets in China are being constructed and reconfigured, I draw upon the literature on geographies of knowledge and learning for my framework of analysis. The dynamic role of knowledge in the capitalist space economy has long held the interest of geographers, especially with regards to creating and sustaining the competitiveness of localized groups of firms in national and regional innovation systems, industrial districts and clusters, and neo-Marshallian nodes (Amin and Thrift, Table 1．Proposition of the …market virtues?
The market enshrines the princinple of consumer sovereignty
The market permits , sustains and delivers individual freedom of choice an action across the economic and social spheres
The market is an ideal mechanism for exchange because its incentive structures are consistent with basic
Features of human nature
The market is applicable to many ,if not all , forms of human activity ,its principal mode of rational
\calculation being suitable to all spheres of life
The market is the epitome of efficiency in the allocation of resource and is unfailingly superior to any other
system of economic governance
The market is the best guarantor of reliable quality in product and services
The market guarantee sustained growth in standards of living in all countries whatever their level of
development
1992; Asheim, 1996; Malmberg, 1997; Maskell and Malmberg, 1999; Malecki, 2000;
MacKinnon et al., 2002). While a key contribution to this field has been the role of tacit (rather than codified or explicit) knowledge in sustaining regional competitiveness (Gertler, 1995, 2003; Morgan, 1997; Storper, 1997), economic geographers are increasingly moving beyond this regional approach to explore diverse means of knowledge creation and transfer through territorially unbounded networks (see critiques by Malmberg, 2003; Hess, 2004; Vallance, 2007). Studies on the global organization of transnational corporations (TNCs) (Amin and Cohendet, 1999, 2004; Beaverstock, 2004; Wrigley et al., 2005; Faulconbridge, 2006), cross-firm project collaborations (Grahber, 2002, 2004; Girard and Stark, 2002), global networks of business and financial knowledge systems (Thrift, 1999; French, 2000; Leyshon and Pollard, 2000; Thrift and Olds, 2005; Hall, 2009) and the roles of transnational migrants (Bunnell and Coe, 2001; Coe and Bunnell, 2003; Williams, 2006) suggest that circuits for the production and dissemination of knowledge are forming on an increasingly global scale, which marks a departure from the conception of knowledge as being fixed in localized sets of relations and institutions.
Other than expanding geographical scope of knowledge networks, more recent studies have also turned towards conceptualizing knowing as a process rather than analysing acquisition of knowledge as a product (Ibert, 2007). This interest in the complexities and constructions of knowledge/knowing can be traced to science and technology studies (Knorr Cetina, 1981; Latour, 1987) and sociology of knowledge (Law, 1986) that highlight the importance of unpacking the black boxes of ‘science’and established ‘facts’to examine the socially constructed character and contextually embedded nature of knowledge, in order to explicate how knowledge and power are reciprocally constituted. Using the case of scallops domestication and the social relations between researchers and fishermen at St Brieuc Bay, Callon (1986) identifies a process of translation ‘‘during which the identity of actors, the possibility of interaction and the margin of manoeuvre are negotiated and delimited’’(p. 203) as the researchers impose themselves (as experts) and their definition of the situation on the community. Table 1. Propositions of the ‘market virtues’. The market enshrines the principle of consumer sovereignty. .The market permits, sustains and delivers individual freedom of choice and action across the economic and social spheres. .The market is an ideal mechanism for exchange because its incentive structures are consistent with basic features of human nature. The market is applicable to many, if not all, forms of human activity, its principal mode of rational calculation being suitable to all spheres of life. The market is the epitome of efficiency in the allocation of resources and is unfailingly superior to any other system of economic governance. The market is the best guarantor of reliable quality in products and services. The market guarantees sustained growth in standards of living in all countries, whatever their level of development. This notion of translation emphasizes the continual process of displacement, transformation, negotiations and adjustments as existing knowledge and interpretations are challenged and reconfigured through social relations. This relational nature of knowledge transfer and creation is also noted by Amin and Cohendet (2004) who distinguish between ‘‘knowledge that is ‘possessed’[. . .] and knowledge that is ‘practiced’(processes of knowing)’’
(p. 13–14) and argue that the interplay between the established competencies of knowledge and the practices of knowing is the key to understanding processes of innovation. Due to its embeddedness in social practice, knowing cannot retain an immutable character when transferred across time and space and must necessarily be translated through practice (see Ibert, 2007). In his study of how global advertising firms tailor their programmes to different local audiences, Faulconbridge (2006) suggests that, in addition to the embodied transfer of best practices, interpersonal connections creating new knowledge should also be recognized. ‘‘The social production of knowledge,’’he argues, ‘‘is not about adapting existing practices to suit local conditions, but using social interaction to inform understanding and develop new logics’’(p. 526). This interpretation relates closely to Williams’(2006) use of the term knowledge translation rather than transfer when considering the role of international migration in the circulation and creation of business knowledge. The concept of translation highlights the importance of understanding knowledge and knowing through the networks and practices of actors (be they locally embedded or translocal), as social relations underpin practices of knowledge creation.
2、由知识网络解构市场
无论是作为一个想法,一个系统或作为经济实践,市场都躺在市场资本主义社会的心脏位置,但它们仍然是最难以捉摸的概念之一在社会科学方面。虽然经济地理学家和其他社会科学家们一直被批评为通过理论的镜头市场以缓慢的从事符合当代资本主义,是一种新兴文学在社会科学与自然长期、建设和生产与再生产的市场由集中于其固有的社会性。这一文学的一个重要特点是市场的坚持,就象其他机构参与经济实践,不永久的稳定,统一、直接或完全可以预知;他们可以采取多种形式,可以在不同的组成部分,产生了作为不同构成的人所产生的意想不到的效果(他们是州,公司,机构或个人)相互作用在主动生产的市场(理念、惯例、规则)。经济社会学的观念把市场关系看做被社会嵌入的市场关系同样地,'economy '不能完全理解如果没有审查制度和构成其社会背景文化的参数,正如博兰尼的说法,“而不是像预期的那样经济待嵌入社会关系中,社会关系是嵌在经济体制”。随后的概念转变从它首次社会嵌入到一个更actor-based帐户规模经济生活的是,这常被归结于人们马克.格兰诺维特,提出嵌入经济行为和活动的社会结构设想为人际网络的人。如果经济行动被视为发生于社会关系网络,构成了社会结构,研究就应该检查"在多大程度上影响了经济活动是如何透过——或者我应当说, ' -网络嵌入在个人关系"。研究社会建设和嵌入的市场吸引了对社会网络的注意力,社会网络对经济决策和如何在社会和政治力量同时影响经济行为和经济制度的特点。
为什么澄清我们的市场概念治疗作为一种实行过程很重要呢,作为嵌入在社会经济学的关系和争论的结果吗?全球化的资本主义自由主义的崛起在20世纪晚期已被认为与类似霸权主义声称关于市场最有效和进步的机制提供经济增长和繁荣。本论文由实在论的命题是合法化的所谓市场美德(见表1),公平地对待市场交换为原子结构的所有经济过程和作为默认形式的经济协调。这是有问题的当其他形式的组织成为被排斥或者被看成次最优的例外. 基本教育对市场的反映在治疗的教条主义和自由主义和宿命论盛行,这种驱动特定的经济发展模式是唯一可行的模式。假定社会主义经济市场实践的进展就是这样的一个例子,在这样的展
示中,建议就是要实施一个从计划到市场经济过渡没收的考虑不同形式的交换关系和结构和忽略的制度环境”的市场在东欧和中国。这些问题点到需要解压“实在论”和“良性的”市场,其内部运作仔细研究,通过其微观组织、机构和组织的成员,以了解空间分化的建筑市场。在承认市场是在时间和空间上变化的社会关系的产品,我们的研究需要超越识别不同类型的市场,分析如何将这些市场正在建造、调节和复制。这是我通过知识网络考察建设和重构中国银行业的市场的目标。
2.1、知识、了解和转化
为了研究中国的金融市场正在如何建造和重新配置,我汲取了地理方面的文学知识并为我的分析框架学习。知识的动态角色在资本主义的空间经济长期吸引了地理学者的关注,特别是对于地理学家创造和保持竞争力的企业在局部地区的群体、国家和区域创新系统、工业园区和集群和新式的Marshallian功能节点。
Table 1．Proposition of the …market virtues?
The market enshrines the princinple of consumer sovereignty
The market permits , sustains and delivers individual freedom of choice an action across the economic and social spheres
The market is an ideal mechanism for exchange because its incentive structures are consistent with basic Features of
human nature
The market is applicable to many ,if not all , forms of human activity ,its principal mode of rational calculation being
suitable to all spheres of life
The market is the epitome of efficiency in the allocation of resource and is unfailingly superior to any other system
of economic governance
The market is the best guarantor of reliable quality in product and services
The market guarantee sustained growth in standards of living in all countries whatever their level of development
而有一个关键的贡献已为这一领域的在维持区域竞争力作用是不言而喻的(而不是编入隐性知识或显式),经济地理学家正在日益超越这一地区的方法来探索多样化的知识创造和转移是指通过网络评论领土无界。该全球组织的研究跨国公司,上市项目合作、全球网络的商业和金融知识系统及跨国移民的角色显示电路的生产和传播知识的形成在日趋国际化的规模,这标志着背离的知识观念作为固定在局部套关系和机构。
除了扩展地理学范围以外的知识网络,更多的最新的研究也转向概念化转认知作为一个过程,而不是分析获取知识作为产品。这个兴趣的复杂性和构造的知识/认知可以追溯到科学与技术研究和强调打开"科学"盒子的知识社会学(1986年),和建立科学的“事实”来检查我们的社会建构的个性和语境来嵌入对知识本质,以自身的知识和力量如何相互构成。摘要采用个案研究的干贝和社会关系与“归化”研究人员和渔民在圣Brieuc湾,标示了转换的过程,在此期间,演员的身份,这种可能性的互动,融资融券的决策是谈判并划如研究者强加自己(专家)和他们的形势的定义的社区。表1、“市场美德”的主张。市场把消费者主权原则的原
则奉为神圣。市场在经济自由体保持中允许，承认，给予个人自由选择和行动的权利。市场是一种理想的机制为交换,因为它的激励结构的基本特征是一致的人类的天性。市场是适用于很多,即使不是全部,人类活动的形式,其合理计算的原则模式非常适合生活的各个领域。市场效率的一个注重资源配置的缩影、是优于其他任何系统的经济治理模式。市场是产品质量和服务质量最好最可靠的保证。市场保障人们的生活水平在所有国家持续的增长,无论其水平的发展。这种知识转移和创作的关系本质也被Cohendet和Amin提到了区分“拥有知识”是“练习知识”,并认为之间的相互作用所建立的竞争力的理论知识和实践的知识是创新的关键是要理解过程。由于其嵌入于社会实践,知道无法保留不变的字符时,一个不可转让星移斗转、空间和一定必然通过实践而翻译。在他对全球广告公司是如何在使他们的节目适合当地不同的观众的研究中,Faulconbridge表明,除了体现转换的最佳做法,人际关系创造新知识也应该被认可。“社会生产的‘知识’”,他说,“不仅仅是适应当前的实践来适应当地的条件,但使用社会互动来预见理解和发展新的逻辑”。与这个解释密切相关是,威廉斯的使用术语的翻译,而不是知识转移的作用时,考虑到国际移民在流通与创作的商业知识。翻译的概念突出了理解重要性和通过网络知识了解和演员的实践,作为一个社会关系的实践知识创造的支撑。
In developing banking regulation and introducing new financial products and services, China is actively learning and importing market ideas and practices on a global scale, although this flow of knowledge is far from straight forward, being mediated through contested processes of knowing (or knowledge translation). My approach in this article is to analyse the network processes in the creation and reconfiguration of financial knowledge and expertise in China, by recognizing these networks as (i) multiscalar and heterogeneous and (ii) contested and unstable. In acknowledging networks as multi-scalar and heterogeneous, I concur with Allen’s (2000: 28) argument that ‘‘[t]here is no one spatial template through which associational understanding or active comprehension takes place. Rather, knowledge translation involves mobile, distanciated forms of information as much as it does proximate relationships’’(see also Allen, 2002). The concepts of knowledge networks and communities of practice are particularly salient in understanding the flows and creation of market ideas and practices. The metaphor of the network captures the webs of interconnected actors through which economic knowledge is produced, exchanged and circulated (following Coe and Bunnell, 2003; Amin and Cohendet, 2004; Faulconbridge, 2006). The notion of ‘communities of practice’(Wenger, 1998) permits understanding of learning that extends beyond the firm to include external agents (such as state institutions, other firms and individual actors) and highlights the heterogeneity of networks through which knowledge is circulated (Amin, 2002; Amin and Cohendet, 2004; Grahber and Ibert, 2006). In this article, I examine the socioeconomic practices of market transformation in China by mapping the networks between regulators, banks, professional organizations and individual actors as they stretch across national boundaries and spatial scales. This network perspective of knowledge and learning enables us to focus on the flows and circulation of people/knowledge between various sites, to reveal important
transnational connections in the creation of market knowledge and practices as embedded in different national territories (Coe and Bunnell, 2003). Such an approach Marketization through contestation, also highlights the role of transnational migrants in knowledge networks within a literature that has largely focused on TNCs and firm level analysis (Bunnell and Coe, 2001; Williams, 2006).
在改善银行监管和引进新金融产品和服务时,中国正积极学习和进口市场的基本理念并在全球范围内实践,虽然这知识的流动是一直朝着远方向前的,通过有争议的过程被介导知道。在这篇文章我的方法是通过分析网络过程的创造与在中国重构金融知识和技术,认识到这些网络作为(一)和多相多标量(二)有争议的,不稳定的。在承认网络作为多标量和异类,我同意艾伦的观点:“没有空间的模板通过理解或积极理解发生。相反,知识翻译的内容多变,distanciated尽可能多的信息形式它紧邻的关系”。知识网络的概念和实践社团尤为引人注目的理解中流动与创作的市场观念和实践。隐喻的网络互联的蜘蛛网的捕捉演员通过它的经济知识生产、交换、流转(证明Coe之上的,和Cohendet 2003;阿明2004;Faulconbridge,2006)。观念的“社区实践”(温格)允许的理解,1998年的学习,持续时间超过该公司能包括外部代理(如国家的制度,其它企业和个体演员)和突出的非均质性是通过知识网络分发(;2002年,阿明·阿明和Cohendet,2004;Grahber 和Ibert,2006)。在这篇文章中,我检查了社会经济实践在中国市场转型之间映射网络监管机构、银行、专业组织和个人的演员,因为他们穿越国界和空间尺度上的。这个网络视角知识和学习使我们能够把注意力集中在流程及循环的人/知识之间的不同地点、揭示重要跨国连接在一起的创造知识和实践市场作为嵌入在不同国家的领土(Coe之上的,2003)。通过这种方法,也强调了市场化,伊格尔顿的角色在知识网络的跨国移民,在文献主要集中在跨国公司和企业层次分析(床位和科杂志,2001;威廉姆斯,2006)。
In recognition of the heterogeneity of these networks, I emphasize the ways in which the exchange and circulation of knowledge is mediated or translated through different market participants with different interests, interpretations and agendas, which renders them inherently unstable and open to contestations. Networks do not necessarily fuse the self-interest of different actors into a harmonious and egalitarian whole but may be characterized by inequalities of power, strategic coalitions, dissembling and opportunistic collaboration. As demonstrated by Callon (1986) and Latour (1987), the nature of knowledge and the translation process are reproduced by and embedded within power asymmetries (see also Sayer, 2003; Murphy, 2006). Translation as such pertains not simply to the content of knowledge but the process of negotiating and knowing constituted by power relations between actors. In this article, I therefore adopt a relational approach centred on tracing the practices of socioeconomic actors who are embedded in ‘‘relational geometries’’(H. Yeung, 2005); these networks of power and relationality are not fixed or stable but are dynamic and open ended (see also Bathelt and Glu¨cker, 2003; Hess, 2004; Jones, 2008). Rather than harmonious cooperation ensured by the invisible hand or the coercive power of the state, distinct social groups construct ‘markets’through ‘processes’of negotiation and conflict resolution against other groups and other
possible forms of markets. This process of negotiation and conflict resolution between diverse actors within knowledge networks forms the main focus of my empirical enquiry, in demonstrating how markets are ontologically unstable and constantly reconfigured through the entangling and disentangling of knowledge networks. These knowledge networks provide vital insights to understanding the spatially differentiated constructions of markets, and represent a ‘bottom up’approach to answering similar research questions as the V oC literature. While the V oC approach focuses on structural features to explain different market structures and systems across national political economies, I argue that such differences can also be attributed to actor-specific practices and dynamics.
在识别这些网络的非均质性,我强调的方式,其中的交换和流通的介导的知识,通过不同的市场参与者的翻译与不同的兴趣,解释和议程,这也会使他们变得contestations固有的不稳定性和开放性。网络不一定融合不同的参与者的利益成一个和谐的整体,但可能是平等的,其特点是不平等的权力、战略联盟、拆解、机会主义的合作。所表现的Callon(1986年),拉图》(1987),就展开了对知识本质和翻译过程是复制和嵌入功率不对称(请参见归根到底是说话人,2003;墨菲,2006)。这样翻译不只是简单地用来作为冲锋陷阵的内容的过程的知识,但谈判并知道构成的权力关系的演员。在这篇文章中,因此,我采取一种关联方法的实践主要集中在追踪嵌入在社会经济的演员“关系几何学”(H。杨,2005);这些网络的力量和relationality不固定或极不稳定,但都是动态的、开放的结束(请参见cker Glu¨】,2003年、2004年;;赫斯·琼斯,2008年)。而不是和谐合作确保了看不见的手或国家的强制力,截然不同的社会群体的市场的构建过程”的方式,通过“谈判和解决冲突的可能与其他团体和其他形式的市场。这一过程之间的谈判和解决冲突的形式多样的演员在知识网络的主要焦点在实证的询问,我ontologically示范市场不稳定并不断重新配置通过纠缠和disentangling的知识网络。这些知识网络提供重要的启发,以了解空间分化的建筑市场,代表了一种“自底向上”的做法来回答类似的研究问题的V oC文学。而挥发性有机化合物的方法着重结构特点来解释不同的市场结构和系统在国家政治经济而言,我认为这样的差别也可以归因于actor-specific实践和动力学。
2.2 Reaching market
The empirical analysis in this article is based on field research conducted in Shanghai (with some supplementary data from London) between August 2005 and February 2007. Shanghai is currently the most developed financial centre on mainland China with the highest concentration of foreign banks and broad representation of Chinese financial institutions along with professional organizations. It is therefore a prime location for studying knowledge networks and market practices given the density and richness of economic interaction amongst its diverse market participants. Fifty-one interviews were conducted with foreign and Chinese financial institutions (mostly banks and some securities companies), Chinese regulators and officials [including the Shanghai Municipal Government (SMG), Shanghai Lujiazui Development and China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC)], and foreign chambers of commerce (British and European Union chambers). Interviews were conducted in a mix of
English and Mandarin lasting between 45 and 90 minutes, and all except four were taped and transcribed (and translated). Interview questions focused on the changing structure 94. and activities of the Chinese banking sector and interviewees’experience and expectations of financial reforms in China. Respondents were asked about particular challenges or difficulties that they had or were experiencing, their plans (corporate strategies or institutional policies) for the Chinese banking market, which areas of financial or regulatory skills or knowledge were lacking and how they were being accessed or developed, and the opportunities and problems that they perceived for the Chinese banking sector.
达到市场2.2
本文的实证分析,根据现场调查是在上海(和一些辅助资料从伦敦)之间的2005年8月和2007年2月。上海是目前最发达的金融中心对中国大陆的最高浓度与外资银行的广泛的中国金融机构表示随着专业团体。因此,总理的位置,为研究给出知识网络和市场实践的丰富性和密度的经济交往在其多样化的市场参与者。51项进行访谈与外国的和中国的金融机构(主要是银行和一些证券公司),中国监管人员和官员(包括上海市人民政府(SMG),上海陆家嘴发展和中国银行业监督管理委员会(以下简称银监会)],和外国商会(英国和欧盟商会)。在混合进行访谈的英语和普通话之间的持久45和90分钟,只有四人转录、翻译录音的和()。面试的问题集中在变化的结构与工作94.应聘者的中国银行业和金融改革的经验和期望,在中国。被调查者被问及特殊的挑战或困难,他们已经或正经历,他们的公司战略计划(或制度)对中国银行业市场,有哪些地区的金融或管理技能和知识紧缺以及它们如何被存取或发达,他们察觉的机会和问题,为中国金融业。
The semi-structured interviews were complemented by secondary data sources that provided contextual information as well as a means of triangulating interview data to improve the integrity of empirical findings and subsequent interpretations. These include research conducted by Chinese scholars and analysts on China’s financial markets and regulatory changes, statistical yearbooks, government reports, articles from local newspapers (e.g. China Daily and Shanghai Daily) and business magazines (e.g. BizShanghai), and announcements and press releases from banks and regulators, in a mix of English and Chinese languages. A field journal was also used to record observations made outside of formal interviews, events in local and national politics relating to changes in the finance industry, and news being circulated in the industry grapevine.
保留补充的是辅助资料,以及提供的背景信息的一种手段,提高数据分片访谈
实证结果的完整性和随后的解释。这些包括研究表示,在中国学者和分析家对中国金融市场和管理上的调整,统计年鉴、政府报告,文章从当地报纸(例句。《中国日报》和《上海日报》)和商业杂志(例句。BizShanghai)以及公告和新闻报道从银行和监管机构,在一个混合的英语和汉语的语言。一场杂志也可以用来记录观测结果之外的正式采访,在本地和全国政治事件有关的变化,金融产业新闻流传在
行业内的小道消息。
3. China’s financial marke ts in context
When the People’s Republic of China was declared in 1949, the mono-banking system of the Soviet Union was adopted as a model in which lending practices were mainly policy driven. The People’s Bank of China (PBOC) had the main responsibility for cash, credit and settlement. State-owned banks such as Bank of China (BOC), Bank of Communications (BOCOM) and Agricultural Bank of China (ABC) mostly functioned as extensions of the PBOC in providing operating capital to state-owned enterprises (SOEs). As part of its economic reforms under the Open Door policy in 1978, China has been restructuring its banking sector to a commercial banking system offering an increasingly diversified range of financial products and services. In the early 1980s, state-owned commercial banks—BOC, ABC, China Construction Bank (CCB) and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)—were established to take over the commercial lending and branch networks of the PBOC and joint-stock commercial banks were also established (Leung and Mok, 2000).1 The PBOC subsequently assumed
1Previously wholly state-owned commercial banks (BOC, CCB, ABC, ICBC and BOCOM) have become shareholding banks following
public listings in Shanghai and Hong Kong, but the state remains the majority equity holder (ranging from 54.7% in BOCOM to 100%
in ABC). Joint-stock commercial banks are partly owned by local governments and SOEs and include China CITIC Bank, China Bohai Bank, China Merchants Bank, and Shanghai Pudong Development Bank.
Although these commercial banks have grown rapidly in the
past decade, the Chinese banking sector remains dominated by state-owned commercial banks. While recognizing that state-owned and
joint-stock commercial banks differ in size, lending strategies and client base, for the purpose of this article I consider them as a group
under the category of Chinese banks as they participate in networks of market knowledge and practices in similar ways that are driven
by similar concerns about foreign competition and WTO accession. For more details on the different roles and characteristics of Chinese
banking institutions, see Laurenceson and Chai (2001), Garcia-Herrero et al. (2006) and G. Yeung (2009).
the role of a central bank with responsibilities for monetary policies, financial regulation and as the government’s banker.
3。中国金融市场在上下文
当中华人民共和国是1949年成立之后,mono-banking申报系统是苏联的被采纳为一个模型,其中借贷行为主要是政策推动的。中国人民银行的中国人民银行
(PBOC)主要负责现金、信用卡和解决问题的能力。国有银行,如中国银行(BOC),交通银行(交通)和中国农业银行(ABC)主要起到的延伸,人民银行在提供营运资金,国有企业改革。作为其经济改革开放政策下,中国一直在1978年重组其银行体系向一家商业银行系统提供一个日益多元化的金融产品和服务范围。
1先前国有独资商业银行(中国银行,中国建设银行、交通银行、中国工商银行和美国广播公司(ABC)的股份制银行已经成为以下上
市,在上海及香港,但国家仍是多数股权持有人(范围从对照高54.7%交行为100%在ABC)。股份制商业银行有一部分是由当地政府
拥有和国有企业,包括中国国际信托投资公司、中国渤海银行、招商银行、上海浦东发展银行。虽然这些商业银行在迅速增长十年
来,中国银行业仍占主导地位的国有商业银行。虽然我们承认国有和股份制商业银行不同大小、借贷策略和客户基础,因为这篇文章
的目的,我认为他们作为一个团队属于中国的银行,因为他们参与网络的市场知识和实践以相似的方式,带动起来的由相似的担心外
来竞争和加入WTO。为更多的细节在不同的角色和特点的中国人金融机构、看Laurenceson和柴(2001),Garcia-Herrero孙俐。(2006),
牛翠娟,杨(2009)。
在20世纪80年代初期,国有商业banks-BOC、美国广播公司、中国建设银行(CCB)和工商银行,中国工商银行接管280建立商业贷款和分支网络的中国人民银行和股份制商业银行也已建立(梁朝伟和莫,2000)0.1央行的角色随后承担职责,中央银行的货币政策,与金融监管和作为政府的银行家。
The diversification and restructuring of the banking system became more prominent in the 1990s with the active promotion of tertiary sector investments in finance, trade and advanced producer services by the central government. Shanghai was appointed the ‘dragonhead’in this endeavour as a new flagship city connecting China to the global economy (Yusuf and Wu, 2002; Wu, 2003). One of the most important reforms is the opening up of the Chinese banking sector to foreign banks who would bring in foreign capital and introduce new banking products and practices from abroad (CBRC, 2007b; Berger et al., 2009). As of 2006, there were more than 70 foreign banks with representative or branch offices in China, of which 30 has purchased stakes in 21 Chinese commercial banks through strategic investment schemes (CBRC, 2007a). While they were initially only allowed to engage in foreign currency business under restricted banking licenses and in selected Special Economic Zones, these geographical and business restrictions have been gradually lifted. The range of products and services offered within the Chinese banking system has also expanded, particularly in previously underdeveloped market segments such as loans to small and medium enterprises (SMEs), trade financing and syndicated loans. The range and complexity of financial products has also increased with the establishment of stock exchanges in Shanghai and Shenzhen in 1990, commodity exchange in Dalian in 1993 and futures exchange in Shanghai in 1999. Three regulatory bodies were created as spin-offs from the PBOC to supervise these new and evolving financial markets (Walter and Howie, 2001). The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) was established in 1992 as China experimented with stock
markets in Shanghai and Shenzhen; the China Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC) was established in 1998 to regulate the insurance industry; and the CBRC was set up in 2003 to implement banking reforms and open up the banking sector to foreign competition under WTO commitments. This allowed the central bank to focus on monetary policy and financial system stability while the three regulatory bodies focus on securities, insurance and banking regulation and restructuring.
多样化的金融系统和经济体制改革成为更加突出的1990年代与积极促进第三产业投资金融、贸易和先进的生产性服务业,由中央政府。上海被任命为'的龙头“在这“奋进号”作为一种新的旗舰城市连接中国与世界经济(尤瑟夫、吴,2002;吴,2003)。其中一个最重要的改革是开放的中国金融部门外国银行谁会引进外资和引进新的银行产品和实践,2007b从国外(银监会《2009年;柏格等)。2006年,已经有超过70个外国银行在中国代表或分支机构,其中30已经购买了股份21我国商业银行通过战略性的投资计划,2007a(以下简称银监会)。当他们最初只允许从事外汇业务在限制银行执照,在选定的经济特区,这些地理和商业限制已经逐步取消。这个系列的产品和提供的服务在中国的银行系统中也得到了扩充,尤其是在先前不发达的市场需要对中小企业贷款融资、贸易融资、银团贷款。的范围和复杂性的金融产品也在不断增加的建立在上海和深圳证券交易所于1990年在大连商品交易所在1993年和1999年在上海期货交易所。创建三个监管机构衍生品从中央银行监督这些新并不断发展的金融市场(沃特和豪依,2001)。中国证券监督管理委员会(以下简称“中国证监会”)成立于1992年,是中国股票市场试验了在上海和深圳;经中国保险监督管理委员会(以下简称中国保监会)成立于1998年,旨在规范保险行业,中国银监会成立于2003年实施银行业改革开放银行业的外国企业的竞争在入世承诺。这使得中央银行的货币政策,并把注意力集中在金融系统稳定性,而这三个监管机构专注于证券、保险、银行监管和重组。
In keeping with these changes, Chinese regulators and domestic financial institutions have sought to improve their standards of business practices, corporate management and banking regulation, for example in areas of credit rating and risk assessment. While the existing literature provides a comprehensive review of banking reforms in China in terms of new rules and regulations (for e.g. Huang, 2001; Saez, 2004; Cousin, 2007; Roland, 2007), there has been little discussion of the roles of diverse market actors and global knowledge networks in the actual process of reconfiguring market ideas and practices leading to the drafting and implementation of those new banking laws. This process of learning and developing frameworks and expertise is fraught with contradictions and tensions between different market actors, such that it is not simply a transition or adoption of models from elsewhere but an active reconfiguration of market ideas and practices. By analysing these networks and processes, ‘markets’are shown to be unstable assemblages of heterogeneous networks constituted by actors with different interpretations, agendas and power to influence the process of market formation.
为了与这些变化,中国监管机构和国内的金融机构已经设法提高他们的标准的商业实践,公司治理和银行业监管领域,例如在信用评级和风险评估。而现有的
文献提供了一个全面回顾我国银行业改革的新规则和规章制度的约束条款(例
句。黄,2001年;也把莫伦特斯带进表妹,2007年,2003;;罗兰,2007年),但至今也没
有讨论不同市场所扮演的角色的演员和全球知识网络市场的实际过程的基本理
念与实践重置导致起草并实施这些新银行法律。这个学习过程和发展框架和专家
都充满着矛盾和紧张的关系不同市场的演员,这样它并不是简单地过渡的模型,从
其他地方或领养而主动争取的一种重构过程的市场理念与实践。通过分析这些网
络和过程,”市场的调查显示,不稳定的组合的异构网络构成的解释中,演员用不同
的议程和力量影响市场的形成的过程。
4. ‘Best practices’ and knowledge translation
At the launch of the CBRC in 2003, Chairman Liu Mingkang declared, ‘‘China ’
s
financial sector has been opened up further to the outside world, while the financial supervisory regime has been brought closer to the international best practices’’(quoted in EuroBiz Magazine, July 2003). While China sought to learn ‘international best practices’from abroad, the process was not a simple transfer of financial expertise from particular institutions or actors. The range of knowledge networks was broad, the actors were diverse and the relevance of particular models or practices also changed over time. Figure 1 shows how different forms of market knowledges and practices were drawn from a range of learning networks stretching across national boundaries and spatial scales. At the regulatory level, formal networks were established with counterparts in other financial centres to learn from different models of regulation and banking practices. At the individual level, knowledgeable experts were targeted through recruitment strategies. Within the Chinese banking industry, foreign and domestic banks and interest groups such as foreign chambers of commerce constituted another layer of knowledge networks that actively construct and reconfigure changing conditions of the Chinese banking sector through advice and lobbying on new banking products and standards. The next three sections will examine each of these layers of knowledge networks in turn and discuss how they interact in the transformation of China’s banking sector.
4 . 和最佳实践知识的翻译
中国银监会的发布会上,刘主席刘明康在2003年表示:“中国的金融部门被开放进一步向外面的世界,而金融监管政权已经带来了接近国际优秀经验”(引用专属杂志,2003年7月)。而中国想要学习的国际最佳实践的过程,从国外的转移并不是一个简单的财务专业知识从特定的机构或演员。知识网络的范围广大,演员们多样、相关性的特定的模型或练习也随时代而改变。图1显示了如何不同形式的市场知识和实践的是来自各种学习网络横跨国界和空间尺度上的。在正式的网络监管水平,与同行建立了在其他金融中心学习的不同模式的规定和银行的做法。在个人层面,有知识的专家通过招聘策略目标。在中国银行业,国外和国内的银行和利益集团例如外国商会构成另一层的知识网络,积极构建与再造变化的条件的中国金融部门通过建议和反映新的银行产品和标准。接下来的三个部分将检查其中的每一层的知识网络反过来,讨论了如何互动转型的过程中,中国的银行体系。
4.1 Regulatory learning partners
Specific channels of knowledge and skills transfer were set up by Chinese regulators to connect with sources of expertise abroad. The CBRC has signed bilateral Regulatory Cooperation Memorandum of Understanding (jianguan hezuo beiwanglu) with 22 overseas counterparts ranging from the USA, UK, Canada and Australia to South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore (CBRC, 2007b). These memorandums of understanding (MOUs) provided frameworks for cooperation and communication channels for exchanging regulatory and technical information. Through these international channels, Chinese regulators acquired technical support and access to different conceptual understandings of banking and finance restructuring and management, learning from different regulatory models and experience. These