The 26th NISPAcee Annual Conference

Conference photos available

Conference photos available

In the conference participated 317 participants

Conference programme published

Almost 250 conference participants from 36 countries participated

Conference Report

The 28th NISPAcee Annual Conference cancelled

The 29th NISPAcee Annual Conference, Ljubljana, Slovenia, October 21 - October 23, 2021

The 2020 NISPAcee On-line Conference

The 30th NISPAcee Annual Conference, Bucharest, Romania, June 2 - June 4, 2022

An opportunity to learn from other researchers and other countries' experiences on certain topics.

G.A.C., Hungary, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

Very well organised, excellent programme and fruitful discussions.

M.M.S., Slovakia, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

The NISPAcee conference remains a very interesting conference.

M.D.V., Netherlands, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

Thank you for the opportunity to be there, and for the work of the organisers.

D.Z., Hungary, 24th Conference 2016, Zagreb

Well organized, as always. Excellent conference topic and paper selection.

M.S., Serbia, 23rd Conference 2015, Georgia

Perfect conference. Well organised. Very informative.

M.deV., Netherlands, 22nd Conference 2014, Hungary

Excellent conference. Congratulations!

S. C., United States, 20th Conference 2012, Republic of Macedonia

Thanks for organising the pre-conference activity. I benefited significantly!

R. U., Uzbekistan, 19th Conference, Varna 2011

Each information I got, was received perfectly in time!

L. S., Latvia, 21st Conference 2013, Serbia

The Conference was very academically fruitful!

M. K., Republic of Macedonia, 20th Conference 2012, Republic of Macedonia

 :: Anonymous user Login / Register 

Optimised for Tablet | Smartphone

 Paper/Speech Details of Conference Program  

for the  26th NISPAcee Annual Conference
  Program Overview
Public Sector Coordination
Author(s)  Ringa Raudla 
  Tallinn University of Technology
Tallinn  Estonia
Cepilovs Aleksandrs, Egert Juuse, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia 
 
 Title  Policy Learning from Crisis in Financial Regulation and Supervision: Overcoming Coordination Challenges?
File   Paper files are available only for conference participants, please login first. 
Presenter  Ringa Raudla
Abstract  
  
The experience of a major crisis is often expected to lead to policy learning but the evidence about it is limited. In this paper we are specifically interested in policy learning from crisis in the field of financial regulation and supervision. The theoretical part of the paper discusses how various factors can influence policy learning from crisis, including the acknowledgment of failure, blame shifting, analytical tractability of the problems in the policy field, and influence of external actors like supranational organizations (especially the European Union) and academic experts from universities. The empirical goal of the paper is to explore comparatively whether the crisis of 2008-2010 has led to policy learning in financial regulation and supervision by civil servants in the Estonia, Latvia and Sweden. We are particularly interested in whether the policy actors have drawn lessons about how to enhance coordination in cross-border financial supervision and whether the policy lessons identified are similar or different across the three countries studied. Given how closely integrated the banking structures are in Sweden, Estonia and Latvia (with significant portions of the banking market in Estonia and Latvia owned by the Swedish banks), prevention of future financial crises would appear to necessitate more extensive coordination between the supervisory actors in these three countries in order to internalize the regulatory externalities. The paper uses qualitative research, including the content analysis of policy documents and semi-structured interviews with civil servants working for the finance ministries, financial supervision agencies and the central banks of the three countries (altogether 37 interviewees). Our preliminary empirical analysis indicates that policy learning in financial regulation and supervision has been more extensive in Sweden than in Estonia and Latvia, owing to more explicit acknowledgement of policy failure, more significant inputs from the academic experts, and a more critical assessment of the advice coming from the European Union.