ABSTRACT
Commenting on the historical background to the introduction of the integrated model for financial supervision in many countries, Taylor and Fleming observe that, whereas in the past, financial supervision tended to be organised around specialist agencies for the banking, securities, and insurance sectors, in the last few years a number of industrialised countries have moved to integrate these different supervisory functions into a single agency.4 Indeed, an informal club of ‘integrated supervisors’ – comprising representatives from Australia, Canada, Denmark, Japan, Korea, Norway, Singapore, Sweden and the UK – met in Sydney, Australia, in early May 1999 for the first time.5 The theme of their meeting centred around issues of mutual interest concerning the application of the integrated model. Today, there are a number of transition economies and developing countries that are considering the adoption of such a model. For example, Latvia, Estonia, Bulgaria and Thailand are cases in point.6 However, although the recent adoption of an integrated model by the UK is seen by many as a novel development in the area of financial supervision, Denmark, Norway and Sweden had, by the mid-1980s, adopted variants of such a model. So, what are the lessons to be learned from these countries?
