To keep away from any confusion the title refers to two largely unrelated elements of economic regulation. Regulatory agencies are mandated to fund their overheads from fees generated by them. Though KYC had been introduced to several countries’ economic institutions, it was taken a lot more as ideal practise and not mandated. The truth that the executive has so far not impinged upon regulatory independence via the use of formal mechanisms is no solace in itself.
Opponents of this view fear that Congress may possibly reduce regulatory budgets to curtail agencies’ capacity to supervise financial firms, but this argument is a broader critique of Congress’s capability to make sound choices. India’s formal mechanisms leave considerably to be preferred to make sure that regulatory independence is not threatened.
Throughout its post-crisis negotiations, Congress considered producing a consolidated monetary regulator.1 The ultimate solution of those discussions—the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act2—did not on its face contain such a super regulator.
The new entity, even so, as opposed to its predecessor, was provided regulatory functions. The material-loss reviews independently conducted by the Inspector Common of the Treasury Department have also helped to expose regulatory failings.44 Such evaluations must be expanded to cover broader problems of regulatory functionality.
This chapter argues that regulatory homogenization threatens to impair the effective functioning of the economic method. These regulators have been granted a series of authorities by Congress so that they can physical exercise independence from the executive branch.…