Search

Post-crisis international standards have been agreed on in certain areas of banking regulation, namely capital, liquidity, and resolution, but not others, namely bank structure – why? We articulate a two-step analytical framework that links the domestic and international levels of governance. In particular, we focus on the role of domestic regulators at the interface between the two levels. At the domestic level, regulators evaluate externalities and adjustment costs before engaging in cooperation at the international level. This analysis explains why regulators in the United States and the European Union act as pacesetters, foot-draggers, or fence-sitters in international standard setting; that is to say, why they promote, resist, or are neutral toward international financial standards. At the international level, we explain the outcome of international standard setting by considering the interaction of pacesetters and foot-draggers.

In the aftermath of the international financial crisis, the European Union (EU) adopted a series of regulatory reforms concerning capital adequacy, bank structures and resolution in order to tackle the risks created by financial institutions that were ‘too big to fail’. This article demonstrates different degrees of progress towards a supranational framework in two important areas of reform: Limited harmonization of the rules on bank structures, but robust progress toward the supranationalization of bank resolution, where the euro area dimension is also considered. What accounts for this variation? We draw on a synthesis of neofunctionalism and liberal intergovernmentalism to explain the diverging outcomes. We explain the low supranationalization in bank structural reforms with the absence of strong spillovers and availability of domestic options to unilaterally contain financial instability. In bank resolution, we examine the causal mechanisms through which significant spillovers modified the government preferences of key Member States.

The changes in the European financial architecture in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis have highlighted the tension between the need for greater centralization of financial regulation at the EU level and the reluctance of some Member States to give up national regulatory autonomy. This article analyses the attitudes of new EU Member States toward the EU financial regulatory reforms. It investigates whether the extent of foreign ownership in the domestic financial sector, Euroscepticism, government support for deregulation and recent experiences of a severe financial crisis have an impact on countries' reservations. According to the results of the analysis, the higher the foreign ownership of a country's financial sector, the more reservations it expresses. The Eurosceptic attitude of the political parties in government matters as well. The more the governing political parties are opposed to EU integration in general, the more reservations one finds in a country's official position on the new EU financial architecture.