To sandbox or not to sandbox? Diverging strategies of regulatory responses to FinTech

IF 3.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Regulation & Governance Pub Date : 2024-09-03 DOI:10.1111/rego.12630
Ringa Raudla, Egert Juuse, Vytautas Kuokštis, Aleksandrs Cepilovs, Vytenis Cipinys, Matti Ylönen
{"title":"To sandbox or not to sandbox? Diverging strategies of regulatory responses to FinTech","authors":"Ringa Raudla, Egert Juuse, Vytautas Kuokštis, Aleksandrs Cepilovs, Vytenis Cipinys, Matti Ylönen","doi":"10.1111/rego.12630","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A regulatory sandbox is an emerging tool for addressing the challenges posed by the FinTech industry, but countries have embraced it to varying degrees. There is a need to systematically examine the question: Which factors explain the diverging trajectories in countries' decision to use (or not use) this instrument? This paper examines the adoption of regulatory sandboxes for FinTech in the Baltic states, where we can observe markedly divergent trajectories. Estonia has not exploited the possibilities of this instrument, while Lithuania and Latvia adopted a regulatory sandbox in 2018 and 2021, respectively. We analyze the political, legal, administrative, and economic factors affecting the adoption (or non-adoption) of regulatory sandboxes for FinTech. We find that the decision to adopt a regulatory sandbox for FinTech is primarily influenced by the efforts of policy entrepreneurs, mechanisms of policy diffusion, and the policy actors' perceptions of legal constraints and available regulatory capacities.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulation & Governance","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12630","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A regulatory sandbox is an emerging tool for addressing the challenges posed by the FinTech industry, but countries have embraced it to varying degrees. There is a need to systematically examine the question: Which factors explain the diverging trajectories in countries' decision to use (or not use) this instrument? This paper examines the adoption of regulatory sandboxes for FinTech in the Baltic states, where we can observe markedly divergent trajectories. Estonia has not exploited the possibilities of this instrument, while Lithuania and Latvia adopted a regulatory sandbox in 2018 and 2021, respectively. We analyze the political, legal, administrative, and economic factors affecting the adoption (or non-adoption) of regulatory sandboxes for FinTech. We find that the decision to adopt a regulatory sandbox for FinTech is primarily influenced by the efforts of policy entrepreneurs, mechanisms of policy diffusion, and the policy actors' perceptions of legal constraints and available regulatory capacities.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
沙盒还是不沙盒?监管机构应对金融科技的不同策略
监管沙盒是应对金融科技行业挑战的新兴工具,但各国对它的接受程度不一。有必要系统地研究这个问题:哪些因素可以解释各国决定使用(或不使用)这一工具的不同轨迹?本文研究了波罗的海国家采用金融科技监管沙盒的情况,在这些国家,我们可以观察到明显不同的轨迹。爱沙尼亚尚未利用这一工具的可能性,而立陶宛和拉脱维亚则分别于 2018 年和 2021 年采用了监管沙盒。我们分析了影响采用(或不采用)金融科技监管沙盒的政治、法律、行政和经济因素。我们发现,采用金融科技监管沙盒的决定主要受到政策制定者的努力、政策传播机制以及政策参与者对法律约束和可用监管能力的看法的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: Regulation & Governance serves as the leading platform for the study of regulation and governance by political scientists, lawyers, sociologists, historians, criminologists, psychologists, anthropologists, economists and others. Research on regulation and governance, once fragmented across various disciplines and subject areas, has emerged at the cutting edge of paradigmatic change in the social sciences. Through the peer-reviewed journal Regulation & Governance, we seek to advance discussions between various disciplines about regulation and governance, promote the development of new theoretical and empirical understanding, and serve the growing needs of practitioners for a useful academic reference.
期刊最新文献
More Policies, More Work? An Epidemiological Assessment of Accumulating Implementation Stress in the Context of German Pension Policy Disembedded: Regulation, Crisis, and Democracy in the Age of FinanceBy Basak Kus, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2024, 200 pp. $29.95 (paperback). ISBN: 9780197764879 Assessing Input Legitimacy of Occupational Pensions in Europe Scenes From a Sociolegal Career: An Informal Memoir Analysis of Institutional Design of European Union Cyber Incident and Crisis Management as a Complex Public Good
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1