Stoa 2019-20 TP: Defining Finance Policy (Part 2)
In the last post, we uncovered the problems with typical interpretations of finance policy. And we landed on this definition of financial policy from the International Monetary Fund,
“Financial policies refers to policies related to the regulation, supervision, and oversight of the financial and payment systems, including markets and institutions, with the view to promoting financial stability, market efficiency, and client-asset and consumer protection.”
We’re still left with questions. The most important is, “What are financial and payment systems?” This definition doesn’t tell us.
While this definition doesn’t lead us astray, it also doesn’t lead us forward. Here are three methods to help you determine if a policy counts as finance policy.
Marker 1: Finance Classification
When Congress considers a bill, it classifies that bill by its policy area. One of the policy areas listed is “Finance and Financial Sector”.
If you happen to be passing a bill which failed in Congress, or a policy nearly similar to a bill previously heard in Congress. Check congress.gov to see what policy area it was listed under!
Then, if your opponents run topicality, you get the ultimate trump card. Imagine getting to say this in the 2AC:
“My opponents have argued our policy isn’t topical. My response is Government vs. Negative Team. The resolution asks for the US Federal Government to reform its finance policy. The US Federal Government has looked at our plan and said, ‘Yeah! That’s finance policy.’ Our opponents want to offer you a different opinion. But their disagreement doesn’t matter, because the government has already ruled on this issue. They’ve established that our plan is an example of the resolution.”
Marker 2: Financial Sector
‘Financial systems’ has a clear contextual meaning. People go to school, major in finance, and take finance classes. When someone tells you that they “want to work in finance” what does that mean?
The S&P 500 breaks down all stocks traded on its index into sectors, the financial services sector is one of their strongest. They say it consists of loan companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, mortgage companies, etc. These are firms that exist to help people manage or make more money. When attempting to determine whether a case is topical, ask yourself, “Does this lead to a government reform to the kinds of firms and institutions listed under the financial sector?”
Marker 3: Financial and Payment Systems
Some policies won’t be regulating or rolling back regulations on individual companies. Rather, they’ll change the way the government gives out loans, pays banks, or determines the rules for fraud and related crimes. These kinds of policies clearly reform financial and payment systems, but they’re outside of the financial sector.
If a policy doesn’t reform companies within the financial sector, ask yourself, “Does this change the way the system through which the government delivers financial and payment services?”. For example, are you changing the standards required for government-financed student loans? Are you reforming how the government audits companies? In these scenarios, it is the government who’s performing these financial services. When this happens, it meets the criteria of financial and payment systems outlined by the IMF definition — and basic common sense.
What other interpretations have you considered for defining finance policy?