Scholarship on regulating global finance emphasizes the importance of national and bureaucratic interests, but less attention has been devoted to epistemic sources of regulatory conflict. We address this by analyzing the failure of regulators to agree tougher rules for large investment funds after the 2008 crisis. The article suggests this outcome was the result of epistemic contestation between prudential regulators and securities regulators, rooted in divergent interpretive “frames.” We show that US and EU prudential regulators pushed for entity-based regulation of investment funds by escalating the issue to global standard-setting bodies. But this was successfully resisted by securities regulators that exercised epistemic authority through recursive practices—appeals to expertise, jurisdictional claims, and alliance building—to defend their transaction-based approach. The article demonstrates how an interpretivist perspective can provide new insights into inter-agency conflict and regulatory disputes in other policy fields.

中文翻译：

---

认知争论和机构间冲突：监管投资基金的挑战

关于监管全球金融的学术研究强调国家和官僚利益的重要性，但很少关注监管冲突的认知来源。我们通过分析监管机构在 2008 年危机后未能就大型投资基金达成更严格的规则来解决这个问题。文章表明，这一结果是审慎监管机构与证券监管机构之间认知争论的结果，其根源在于不同的解释“框架”。我们表明，美国和欧盟的审慎监管机构通过将问题上报给全球标准制定机构来推动对投资基金进行基于实体的监管。但这被证券监管机构成功抵制，他们通过递归实践行使认知权威——诉诸专业知识、管辖权主张、和联盟建设——捍卫他们基于交易的方法。这篇文章展示了解释主义的观点如何为其他政策领域的机构间冲突和监管纠纷提供新的见解。