As political tides shift, so too do prevailing views on financial regulation and supervision. Once a domain of post-crisis orthodoxy, it has become a site of politicized scrutiny, with growing calls to dismantle what some regard as an outdated and unduly burdensome regime. Deregulation is no longer framed as rollback — it is cast as modernization, simplification, and even efficiency, all in greater service of democratically grounded mandates.
This section explores how deregulatory sentiment has gained institutional and political force. In the United States, what began as criticism of capital rules has evolved into a broader campaign to reshape the architecture of oversight — through litigation, leadership turnover, agency downsizing, and new executive controls. In the United Kingdom, efforts to consolidate regulators and reduce burdens reflect similar tensions, even as Europe and other jurisdictions defend the gains of post-crisis reform while bowing to contemporary political pressures for change.
This content is available to both premium Members and those who register for a free Observer account.
If you are a Member or an Observer of Starling Insights, please sign in below to access this article.
Members enjoy full access to all articles and related content from past editions of the Compendium as well as Starling's special reports. Observers can access a limited number of articles and may purchase articles on an ala carte basis.
You can click the 'Join' button below to become a Member or to register for free as an Observer.
Join The Discussion