Welcome to the blog.
The goal of this blog is to articulate a perspective on how to harness [in both senses of the word] the ongoing FinTech Revolution from a global civil society point of view. The fundamental aim is to promote long-term socio-economic welfare for all Earthlings.
The question that we will be dealing with is – what’s the nature of the global financial regulatory architecture that best promotes our common future? In particular, this blog lies at the intersection of Global Finance [the hare], National Regulations [a polymorphous creature whose different parts move at different speeds], The Evolving Cloud [the gazelle] and the Political Economy of International Law [the tortoise]. The focus is on the impact of the FinTech [& RegTech] revolution on the current and future regulatory environment of the global financial services industry.
The aim is to analyse the main issues when it comes to the regulation of the financial services industry on a global basis – the current institutions, organizations and frameworks that exist to resolve the issues, the various players in this system and their interests; and finally the likely future evolutionary trajectory of this entire system – especially as impacted by the ongoing technological revolution. The future-oriented application focus for the blog, will be on the likely role of the private sector and public-private partnerships [as opposed to that of a pure nation-states based approach] in the development of the institutions and organisations of the global financial system’s regulatory architecture – especially in light of the glaring absence of a politically centralized global governance structure.
The basic issue that we face is –
[a] Individual firms are focused in on promoting the long term welfare of their particular stakeholders (weighted differently by different firms, driven by firm specific dynamics) and [b] local/regional/national/supranational regulatory authorities driven by their specific political processes. In the absence of a world government (unlikely till the later part of the 21st century, at best), the question for a GFR thinker becomes “how do we evolve an institutional financial architecture, while recognizing the current available elements, that promotes long-term global socio-economic welfare?”
More specifically, given our shared human history of having historically and overwhelmingly evolved extractive and therefore lower-income politico-economic institutions, how do we work toward designing an inclusive global financial regulatory architecture that efficiently and effectively promotes equitable growth in world GDP? The question is simultaneously a content – what are the details of a 21st century GFR structure? – and a process – what are the institutions that will formulate them and what are their dynamics? -issue.
To use an analogy:
Just suppose we’re on a old over-burdened rickety ship (called Regulation of Global Finance) that needs to be redesigned for a completely new (FinTech tsunami impacted) domain (say, a regular ship that needs to become an icebreaker) and we need a new process for the redesigning (the old shipbuilding expertise is limited when it comes to the icy realms and the young and globally diverse upstarts with fantastic new ideas nevertheless lack the wisdom, perspective and above all the patience of the old-timers), then how do we do it, when we’re not only on the open seas, but when we’re in the middle of a (territorial-tribalist ethno-nationalist politico-economic) storm?
That this is a recipe for disaster for the cargo (families, widows, orphans) would be the realistic prediction.
But the aim of this blog is to give us reasons for optimism. We believe that mankind can and will solve these problems. And to those who are skeptical, maybe because of the spread of ethnic nationalism in our times, we offer the assurance that the night is darkest before the dawn. However, while Faithful Hope is one of our foundations, the main strength of this blog is its reliance on Skeptical Reason. While we will be open to fresh new and innovative ideas, we will be biased towards those that are theoretically and empirically consistent with research based perspectives of human nature and institutions; especially when it comes to the analysis of the latest data and trends. In that sense we’re [small c] conservative.
Let’s not fear the storm or the unseen torpedoes, fellow Earthlings! We don’t.
Full speed ahead!