No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 October 2019
Rulemaking pursuant to the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act provides a useful setting to assess theories of interest group influence. In the wake of the financial crisis, Congress delegated new rulemaking authority to federal agencies to regulate mortgage markets. A critical aspect of this new regulatory regime engendered significant controversy from affected interests: “credit risk retention” would require sponsors of asset-backed securities to retain a stake in the risk of securitized assets. Contrary to unrefined industry capture-based accounts stressing the disproportionate role of larger, well-established regulated entities in setting policy, we find little evidence of sustained effort by large lenders to dilute regulatory standards via political investments. Rather, a diverse coalition of housing sector, community, and civil rights groups, backed by an ideologically diverse swath of legislators, forced substantial regulatory retrenchment. Our analysis suggests a more nuanced view of private influence, in which coordination plays a more substantial role than political investments alone.
We gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments of David Brady, Charles Calomiris, and the participants at the Hoover Institution's Regulation and Rule of Law Conference on 4 March 2016 and Executive Power and Rule of Law Conference on June 10, 2016; as well as the suggestions of three anonymous referees. Steven Rashin provided excellent research assistance.