To sandbox or not to sandbox? Diverging strategies of regulatory responses to <scp>FinTech</scp>

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Regulation & Governance
Published
2024-09-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12630
Citations
5
Primary Topic
FinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.64

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Aleksandrs Cepilovs, Egert Juuse, Vytautas Kuokštis, Matti Ylönen et al.
5 citations
Regulation & Governance
FinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
2.64
article

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

Aleksandrs Cepilovs, Egert Juuse, Vytautas Kuokštis, Matti Ylönen, Ringa Raudla, Vytenis Cipinys
article en
5 citations

Abstract

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.

Regulation & GovernanceVol. 19(3)
Tallinn University of Technology (EE), University of Helsinki (FI), International Business School at Vilnius University (LT)
Eesti Teadusagentuur
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
FinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
2.64
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

To sandbox or not to sandbox? Diverging strategies of regulatory responses to <scp>FinTech</scp> — Aleksandrs Cepilovs, Egert Juuse, et al. · Regulation & Governance (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS