New development: Credit rating agencies and sovereign ratings: conflicts of interest and layers of analysis

This article develops the three main conflicts of interest that credit rating agencies face when performing sovereign ratings: economic, regulatory and epistemic. Through a four-layered analytical framework (informational, interpretative, institutional, and analytical), the author shows that these conflicts still influence how data are selected, interpreted, and legitimized. By examining recent empirical evidence and theoretical contributions, the author argues that opacity in data use, internalized interpretive routines, and weak accountability are key features of the current rating process. Employing the four analytical layers, reforms are proposed that could strengthen public oversight and could be conducive to generating more ‘public value’ in sovereign ratings. The findings also contribute to rethinking public financial governance and the regulation of expert judgment in the public sphere.