IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/refreg/v8y2022i1p104-131..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Retaining Influence in Post-Brexit International Financial Regulation: Lessons from the UK’s FinTech Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Pedro Schilling de Carvalho

Abstract

A common rhetoric has emerged among UK authorities when it comes to how to deal with a potential loss of influence in the regulation of financial services after Brexit: as divergence from the EU increases, it will be necessary to retain the UK’s influence as a rule maker through an enhanced engagement via international standard-setting bodies (ISSBs). This article argues that placing an excessive focus on the role of ISSBs to mitigate the UK’s loss of influence might be misguided, based on an analysis of the UK’s past relationship with these regulatory networks, alongside an assessment of their historical shortcomings and increasing limitations. Furthermore, this article advances the argument that the UK FinTech regulatory approach might serve as a successful complementary template for influence, combining a domestic framework with the development of a domestic-led network. For that purpose, this article compares initial responses to FinTech regulation at the UK, EU, and international levels, focusing on the Financial Conduct Authority’s regulatory sandbox and Global Financial Innovation Network to show how the UK’s regulatory ethos was effectively exported, constraining the options available to other countries while also framing the debate at the international level.

Suggested Citation

  • Pedro Schilling de Carvalho, 2022. "Retaining Influence in Post-Brexit International Financial Regulation: Lessons from the UK’s FinTech Framework," Journal of Financial Regulation, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 104-131.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:refreg:v:8:y:2022:i:1:p:104-131.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jfr/fjac004
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:refreg:v:8:y:2022:i:1:p:104-131.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jfr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.