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.

中文翻译：

---

沙箱还是不沙箱？金融科技监管应对策略的差异


监管沙盒是应对金融科技行业挑战的新兴工具，但各国都不同程度地接受了它。有必要系统地研究这样一个问题：哪些因素解释了各国决定使用（或不使用）这一工具的不同轨迹？本文研究了波罗的海国家金融科技监管沙箱的采用情况，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分别于 2018 年和 2021 年采用了监管沙盒。我们分析了影响金融科技采用（或不采用）监管沙箱的政治、法律、行政和经济因素。我们发现，采用金融科技监管沙箱的决定主要受到政策企业家的努力、政策扩散机制以及政策行为者对法律约束和现有监管能力的看法的影响。