Over the last ten years the architecture of financial regulation and supervision in Europe has undergone sweeping changes. The demise of the previous “laissez faire era” unleashed an extraordinary torrent of EU institutional and regulatory reforms. Approaches, methodologies and tools by which financial institutions are regulated have drastically been revised to cope with the increasing complexity of modern financial intermediation. New forms of collaborative and polycentric governance in fact emerged as to better respond to sophisticated market failures, opening up to amplified participation and power-sharing between “public” and “private” actors. Crisis management and bank resolution represent an interesting area where regulators reserved some room for a public-private collaborative form of regulation. While there is some extensive scholarship placing recovery and resolution planning at the intersection of ex ante and ex post regulatory strategies, little attention has been paid to the specific modes of interaction between regulators and regulated entities. This study aims to advance knowledge by assessing the main features of “living wills” regulation in the light of the “new governance” theory. In so doing, it emphasizes the advantages of a dynamic cooperation between public (governments, regulators) and private (regulated) parties in overcoming looming market failures such as informational asymmetries and moral hazard.

中文翻译：

---

银行危机管理，恢复和解决方案计划以及“新治理”理论：以公私合营的监管形式对待“生存意志”

在过去的十年中，欧洲的金融监管体系发生了翻天覆地的变化。先前的“放任自由时代”的消亡释放了欧盟机构和监管改革的巨大洪流。应对金融机构监管的方法，方法和工具进行了彻底修改，以应对现代金融中介日益复杂的问题。实际上，为了更好地应对复杂的市场失灵，出现了新的协作和多中心治理形式，从而扩大了“公共”和“私人”参与者之间的参与和权力共享。危机管理和银行解决方案是一个有趣的领域，监管机构为此保留了一些空间，以实现公私合作形式的监管。虽然有大量的奖学金将事后恢复和解决方案规划放在事前和事后监管策略的交集上，但很少有人关注监管机构和被监管实体之间的特定互动方式。本研究旨在通过根据“新治理”理论评估“生前遗嘱”监管的主要特征来增进知识。在此过程中，它强调了公共（政府，监管机构）和私人（受规制）各方之间动态合作在克服迫在眉睫的市场失灵（例如信息不对称和道德风险）方面的优势。本研究旨在通过根据“新治理”理论评估“生前遗嘱”监管的主要特征来增进知识。在此过程中，它强调了公共（政府，监管机构）和私人（受监管）方之间动态合作在克服迫在眉睫的市场失灵（例如信息不对称和道德风险）方面的优势。本研究旨在通过根据“新治理”理论评估“生前遗嘱”监管的主要特征来增进知识。在此过程中，它强调了公共（政府，监管机构）和私人（受监管）方之间动态合作在克服迫在眉睫的市场失灵（例如信息不对称和道德风险）方面的优势。