Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholders’ Perspectives on Benefits and Challenges in Blockchain Regulatory Frameworks

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Blockchain and the Public Sector

Part of the book series: Public Administration and Information Technology ((PAIT,volume 36))

Abstract

Prior research has indicated that institutional stakeholders influence the elaboration of regulatory frameworks by seeking to maximize their institutional power to achieve favorable policy outcomes. In recent years, Blockchain services regulation has been issued with the aim at influencing the process of technological change and diffusion. Based on stakeholder theory and empirical data collected from key stakeholders, this chapter seeks to contribute to the literature on stakeholder involvement in formulating and enacting regulatory frameworks, understanding the perspectives and needs of different key stakeholders regarding benefits, challenges, and expected outcomes of legislatives initiatives to regulate services based on Blockchain Technology/Distributed Ledger Technology (BCT/DLT). Findings show that the various stakeholders analyzed have competing views and interests in the respective service regulation that ranges from the functioning of BCT/DLT services inside financial markets (financial regulators and government decision makers), to safety, security, and practical risk-management and operational measures for their conducting business (lobbyists and Fintech firms).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allen, D. W., & Berg, C. (2018). Regulation and technological change. In Australia’s red tape crisis (pp. 218–230). Brisbane: Connor Court Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amadife, E. N. (1999). Pre-theories and theories of foreign policy-making. Lanham: University Press of Amer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anastasiadis, S. (2014). Toward a view of citizenship and lobbying: Corporate engagement in the political process. Business & Society, 53(2), 260–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arras, S., & Braun, C. (2018). Stakeholders wanted! Why and how European Union agencies involve non-state stakeholders. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(9), 1257–1275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Financial Conduct Authority. (2017). Discussion Paper on distributed ledger technology. DP17/3. Retrieved from https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/discussion/dp17-03.pdf

  • Baumgartner, F. R., Berry, J. M., Hojnacki, M., Leech, B. L., & Kimball, D. C. (2009). Lobbying and policy change: Who wins, who loses, and why. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, R., Müller-Bloch, C., & King, J. L. (2018). Governance in the blockchain economy: A framework and research agenda. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(10), 1020–1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breu, S. (2018). Are blockchains and cybercurrencies demanding a new legislative framework. Journal Law and Digital Economy, 1(1), 12–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brey, P. (2008). The technological construction of social power. Social Epistemology, 22(1), 71–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, J. (2017). Breach of faith: A lack of policy for responding to data breaches and what the government should do about it. Florida Law Review, 69, 959.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, R. E. (2019). Research transitioning to a hyperledger fabric hybrid quantum resistant-classical public key infrastructure. The Journal of British Blockchain Association, 2(2), 15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R. (2019). Principles and business processes for responsible AI. Computer Law & Security Review, 35(4), 410–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collomb, A., De Filippi, P., & Klara, S. O. K. (2019). Blockchain technology and financial regulation: A risk-based approach to the regulation of ICOs. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 10(2), 263–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Filippi, P., & Hassan, S. (2018). Blockchain technology as a regulatory technology: From code is law to law is code. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.02507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorofeyev, M., Kоsov, M., Ponkratov, V., Masterov, A., Karaev, A., & Vasyunina, M. (2018). Trends and prospects for the development of blockchain and cryptocurrencies in the digital economy. European Research Studies Journal, 21(3), 429–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, R. (2017). Code!= Law: Explorations of the Blockchain as a Mode of Algorithmic Governance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick, M., Kaal, W. A., & Vermeulen, E. P. (2017). Legal education in the Blockchain revolution. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 20, 351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finck, M. (2018). Blockchains: Regulating the unknown. German Law Journal, 19(4), 665–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & DeColle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2002). Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuenfschilling, L., & Truffer, B. (2016). The interplay of institutions, actors and technologies in socio-technical systems—An analysis of transformations in the Australian urban water sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 103, 298–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghaffari, K., Lagzian, M., Kazemi, M., & Malekzadeh, G. (2019). A socio-technical analysis of internet of things development: An interplay of technologies, tasks, structures and actors. Foresight, 21(6), 640–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (1999). The future of grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 9(6), 836–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, P., Lianos, I., Dimitropoulos, G., & Eich, S. (2019). Regulating blockchain: Techno-social and legal challenges – an introduction. In Regulating blockchain. Techno-social and legal challenges (pp. 3–24). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hileman, G., & Rauchs, M. (2017). 2017 global blockchain benchmarking study. Available at SSRN 3040224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Islam, N., Mäntymäki, M., & Turunen, M. (2019, January). Understanding the role of actor heterogeneity in blockchain splits: An actor-network perspective of bitcoin forks, in Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on system sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsson, K. (2004). Soft regulation and the subtle transformation of states: The case of EU employment policy. Journal of European Social Policy, 14, 355–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamison, M. A., & Tariq, P. (2018). Five things regulators should know about blockchain (and three myths to forget). The Electricity Journal, 31(9), 20–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapstein, E. B. (1989). Resolving the regulator’s dilemma: International coordination of banking regulations. International Organization, 43(2), 323–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karajovic, M., Kim, H. M., & Laskowski, M. (2019). Thinking outside the block: Projected phases of blockchain integration in the accounting industry. Australian Accounting Review, 29(2), 319–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, W., & McDermott, K. (2019). Evolutionary stakeholder theory and public utility regulation. Business and Society Review, 124(2), 283–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacity, M. C. (2018). Addressing key challenges to making enterprise blockchain applications a reality. MIS Quarterly Executive, 17(3), 201–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, S., Fox-Lent, C., Eisenberg, D. A., Trump, B. D., Wallace, S., Chadderton, C., et al. (2015). Benchmarking agency and organizational practices in resilience decision making. Environment Systems and Decisions, 35(2), 185–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lessig, L. (2006). Code: and other laws of cyberspace, version 2.0. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, R., McPartland, J., & Ranjan, R. (2017). Blockchain and financial market innovation. Economic Perspectives, 41(7), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnuson, W. (2018a). Financial regulation in the Bitcoin era. Stanford Journal of Law, Business & Finance, 23(2), 159–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnuson, W. (2018b). Regulating fintech. Vanderbilt Law Review, 71(4), 1167–1226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijers, M. J., Schneider, C. J., & Zhelyazkova, A. (2019). Dimensions of input responsiveness in the EU: Actors, publics, venues. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(11), 1724–1736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2014). OECD best practice principles for regulatory policy. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2018). OECD regulatory policy outlook. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ojo, M. (2019). Facilitating artificial intelligence and block chain systems, partnerships and technologies: Emerging global actors and players in the financial reporting framework. Center & Institute for Innovation and Sustainable Development Economic Review, 1, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ølnes, S., Ubacht, J., & Janssen, M. (2017). Blockchain in government: Benefits and implications of distributed ledger technology for information sharing. Government Information Quarterly, 34(3), 255–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozili, P. K. (2019). Blockchain finance: Questions regulators ask. Disruptive innovation in business and finance in the digital world (Vol. 20, pp. 123–129). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, G., Panayi, E., & Chapelle, A. (2015). Trends in cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies: A monetary theory and regulation perspective. Journal of Financial Perspectives, 3, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poptcheva, E. M. (2019). Parliamentary oversight: Challenges facing classic scrutiny instruments and the emergence of new forms of ‘steering’ scrutiny. In The European Parliament in times of EU crisis (pp. 25–52). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Puccio, L., & Harte, R. (2019). The European parliament’s role in monitoring the implementation of EU trade policy. In The European Parliament in times of EU crisis (pp. 387–412). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Quaglia, L., & Spendzharova, A. (2019). Regulators and the quest for coherence in finance: The case of loss absorbing capacity for banks. Public Administration, 97(3), 499–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, C. (2007). Taking sides on technology neutrality. SCRIPTed, 4(3), 263–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenau, J. N. (1980). The scientific study of foreign policy. London/New York: Frances Pinter Publishers Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabel, C. F., & Zeitlin, J. (2008). Learning from difference: The new architecture of experimentalist governance in the EU. European Law Journal, 14(3), 271–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoeller, M. G., & Héritier, A. (2019). Driving informal institutional change: The European Parliament and the reform of the Economic and Monetary Union. Journal of European Integration, 41(3), 277–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholl, H. J. (2001). Applying stakeholder theory to e-government: benefits and limits. In B. Schmid, K. Stanoevska-Slabeva, & V. Tschammer (Eds.), 1st IFIP conference on e-commerce, e-business, and e-government (I3E 2001) (pp. 735–747). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholl, H. J. (2004). Involving salient stakeholders: Beyond the technocratic view on change. Action Research, 2(3), 281–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholl, H. J., Pomeshchikov, R., & Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P. (2020, January). Early regulations of distributed ledger technology/blockchain providers: A comparative case study, in Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholl, H. J., & Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P. (2019). Regulation as both enabler of technology use and global competitive tool: The Gibraltar case. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 601–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwabe, G. (2019). The role of public agencies in blockchain consortia: Learning from the Cardossier. Information Polity, 2019, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, D. A. (2007). Regulating capital: Setting standards for the international financial system. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanton, T., & Webster, D. W. (Eds.). (2014). Managing risk and performance: A guide for government decision makers. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, E. (2009). Evaluation policy in the European Union and its institutions. New Directions for Evaluation, 2009(123), 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tapscott, D., & Tapscott, A. (2016). Blockchain revolution: How the technology behind bitcoin is changing money, business, and the world. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, C. H., & Kuan-Jung, P. (2017). The FinTech revolution and financial regulation: The case of online supply-chain financing. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 4(1), 109–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsingou, E. (2015). Club governance and the making of global financial rules. Review of International Political Economy, 22(2), 225–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walch, A. (2016). The path of the blockchain lexicon (and the law). The Review of Banking and Financial Law, 36, 713–765.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warnez, J. & Jõesaar, S. (2018). Regulating and taxing platform businesses. Copenhagen, Denmark: Master’s Thesis, MSc in Social Sciences in Service Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeoh, P. (2017). Regulatory issues in blockchain technology. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, 25(2), 196–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, K. (2019). Regulation by blockchain: The emerging battle for supremacy between the code of law and code as law. The Modern Law Review, 82(2), 207–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). How to do better case studies. The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods, 2, 254–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zetzsche, D. A., Buckley, R. P., Barberis, J. N., & Arner, D. W. (2017). Regulating a revolution: From regulatory sandboxes to smart regulation. The Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, 1, 31–103.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar

  2. The Information School, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Hans Jochen Scholl & Roman Pomeshchikov

Authors
  1. Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hans Jochen Scholl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roman Pomeshchikov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Administration, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA

    Christopher G. Reddick

  2. Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Manuel Pedro Rodríguez-Bolívar

  3. The Information School, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Hans Jochen Scholl

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rodríguez Bolívar, M.P., Scholl, H.J., Pomeshchikov, R. (2021). Stakeholders’ Perspectives on Benefits and Challenges in Blockchain Regulatory Frameworks. In: Reddick, C.G., Rodríguez-Bolívar, M.P., Scholl, H.J. (eds) Blockchain and the Public Sector. Public Administration and Information Technology, vol 36. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55746-1_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation