Mitigation Effects of FinTech Regulatory Sandboxes on SME Financing Constraints

Wei Chang1, Lingfang Xie2,*.
1, School of Information Science and Technology, Northwest University, Xi’an 710119, China.
2, School of Finance, Shanghai Lixin University of Accounting and Finance.Shanghai,201209, China.
wmxfd_shangcai@163.com

First author: Wei Chang, changwei0307@163.com
Second author and corresponding author: Lingfang Xie, wmxfd_shangcai@163.com

Abstract
Purpose: This study investigates the mitigation effects of FinTech regulatory sandboxes on small and medium enterprise (SME) financing constraints, examining how innovative regulatory frameworks facilitate financial inclusion and ecosystem development across diverse institutional contexts. Methodology: The research employs a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative comparative case analysis with quantitative impact assessment, systematically analyzing regulatory sandbox frameworks across three distinctive jurisdictions: the United Kingdom, Singapore, and Hungary, spanning the period from 2016 to 2024. Data collection incorporates triangulated secondary sources including regulatory documents, policy statements, statistical reports, and academic literature to ensure comprehensive coverage and analytical rigor. Findings: The analysis reveals that regulatory sandboxes consistently generate positive outcomes in alleviating SME financing constraints through multiple complementary mechanisms including innovation facilitation, regulatory learning enhancement, and ecosystem development. However, effectiveness varies significantly across jurisdictions, reflecting differences in regulatory maturity, institutional capacity, and strategic priorities, with mature economies demonstrating superior innovation diversity while emerging markets excel in regulatory compliance integration. Conclusion: Regulatory sandboxes represent transformative institutional innovations that extend beyond traditional regulatory facilitation to encompass comprehensive ecosystem restructuring and creation of new forms of regulatory capital for SME financial access. Practical Implications: The findings provide evidence-based insights for policymakers seeking to optimize regulatory frameworks for FinTech innovation and SME financial inclusion, emphasizing the importance of holistic approaches that balance innovation facilitation with appropriate risk management and institutional capacity building.
Keywords: regulatory sandbox; FinTech innovation; SME financing constraints; financial inclusion; comparative regulatory analysis

1. Introduction
   The contemporary financial landscape is experiencing an unprecedented transformation driven by the rapid proliferation of financial technology (FinTech) innovations. This technological revolution, characterized by the emergence of digital payment systems, blockchain-based solutions, artificial intelligence-driven financial services, and decentralized finance platforms, has fundamentally altered the traditional paradigms of financial service delivery and regulatory oversight. The exponential growth of FinTech companies has created a complex regulatory environment where traditional financial supervision frameworks struggle to accommodate novel business models that often transcend conventional sectoral boundaries [1]. The rapid pace at which new Financial technology start-ups are being developed and the sluggish pace at which regulation is being implemented calls for urgent action by regulators [2]. This regulatory lag has prompted financial authorities across diverse jurisdictions to explore innovative approaches to financial supervision, with regulatory sandboxes emerging as a prominent policy instrument designed to bridge the gap between technological innovation and prudential oversight.
   Small and medium enterprises face particularly acute challenges in accessing financing, with traditional credit assessment mechanisms often inadequately serving firms lacking extensive credit histories or collateral assets. The emergence of FinTech innovations offers potential solutions to these longstanding constraints, yet regulatory uncertainties have limited the development and deployment of SME-focused financial technologies. This context makes regulatory sandboxes particularly relevant for SME financing, as they provide controlled environments for testing innovative solutions specifically designed to address small business financing gaps.
   Regulatory sandboxes have emerged as policy instruments designed to support FinTech innovation while maintaining supervisory oversight [3]. The concept represents a paradigmatic shift from traditional ex-post regulatory enforcement to proactive, collaborative governance models that enable controlled experimentation with innovative financial services. Since the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) of the United Kingdom pioneered the first regulatory sandbox in 2016, this regulatory innovation has been adopted by numerous jurisdictions worldwide, establishing a precedent that has since been adopted by numerous other jurisdictions worldwide, including Singapore and Hungary [4]. These controlled testing environments allow FinTech firms to test their innovative products and services in a controlled environment under the supervision of regulatory authorities, facilitating a cooperative relationship between innovators and policymakers [5].
   The theoretical foundations of regulatory sandboxes extend beyond mere technical facilitation to encompass broader economic functions of administrative law. Administrative regulation increasingly serves not only to enforce compliance but also to design and steer market environments in line with public objectives [6]. Sandboxes exemplify this evolution, functioning as instruments of proactive governance that enable innovation while preserving legal oversight. This approach represents a component of a more extensive trend of responsive regulation, within which regulators transition from a rigid rule-based model to more dynamic and iterative frameworks [7]. The regulatory sandbox concept emerged in the mid-2010s as a response to the tension between financial innovation and regulatory certainty, marking a significant paradigm shift in regulatory strategy from ex-post enforcement to ex-ante facilitation of innovation [8].
   Despite the widespread adoption of regulatory sandboxes and considerable scholarly attention, empirical evidence regarding their effectiveness remains fragmented and contentious. Some studies demonstrate positive outcomes, indicating that firms participating in regulatory sandboxes experience enhanced access to funding, accelerate product development, and foster regulator-firm collaboration [9]. Comparative analysis across nine countries found that the introduction of regulatory sandboxes positively influenced FinTech venture investments, suggesting that such frameworks can play a vital role in enhancing the FinTech ecosystem [10]. However, critical perspectives have emerged regarding potential unintended consequences, including concerns about regulatory capture and the potential for selection bias in sandbox participation, where only firms with robust legal and technical capabilities successfully navigate application processes [11].
   The heterogeneity of sandbox implementations across different institutional contexts further complicates assessment of their effectiveness. While mature economies like the UK and Singapore benefit from established ecosystems and structured frameworks, emerging markets face distinct challenges in sandbox design and implementation [12]. The diversity of approaches is exemplified in comparative analyses of sandbox initiatives across different jurisdictions, each reflecting different regulatory priorities and market conditions [13]. This institutional variation underscores the importance of contextual factors, including regulatory culture, administrative capacity, and market maturity, in determining sandbox outcomes [14]. The systemic inertia within traditional regulatory frameworks emphasizes the value of sandboxes as agile tools for adaptive oversight, yet implementation challenges persist across diverse institutional environments[15].
   Contemporary research has begun to address specific design challenges and operational considerations for regulatory sandboxes. Studies examining regulator-innovator collaboration highlight the importance of structured engagement mechanisms in fostering effective partnerships [16]. The significance of transparent admission criteria and regulator neutrality has been emphasized to prevent perceived favoritism in FinTech ecosystems [17]. Furthermore, research on sandbox effectiveness in emerging markets indicates that regulatory sandboxes are only effective when supported by coherent policy environments, institutional trust, and adequate market maturity [18]. These findings highlight the relevance of contextual and institutional preconditions that this comparative study seeks to evaluate systematically.
   Recent developments in regulatory sandbox literature have expanded beyond traditional financial services to encompass high-risk artificial intelligence applications and cybersecurity innovations [19]. The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act explicitly stipulates the need for member countries to establish regulatory sandboxes to regulate AI innovations, reflecting the broader applicability of sandbox frameworks beyond FinTech [20]. This expansion underscores the evolving role of regulatory sandboxes as comprehensive tools for managing technological innovation across multiple sectors, while simultaneously highlighting the need for adaptive legal frameworks governing sandbox operations [21].
   The research fills an important void in regulatory sandbox literature through a comparative analysis of the United Kingdom, Singapore and Hungary. These are examples of different degrees of regulatory maturity, institutional tradition and approach towards innovation-enabling, which offer a rich vein for exploring how context influences the outcomes of the sandbox. The research seeks to assess the role of regulatory sandboxes in influencing FinTech innovation and market access in countries with different regulatory maturity, determine the design features that make a regulatory sandbox most effective, and to measure the challenges and limitations of implementing a sandbox in different institutional conditions.
   The implications of this research’s findings are not only of academic interest, but also to respond to urgent policy-related concerns regulators are facing globally. As the pace of financial innovations quickens and new technologies reshape the on and off ramps for the delivery of financial services, it becomes more urgent to understand the circumstances under which regulatory sandboxes are able effectively to serve both the facilitation of innovation and the preservation of financial stability and consumer protection. This comparative study will help develop an evidence-based regulatory policy which can be useful for creating sustainable and competitive FinTech ecosystem without hurting the financial system integrity. Figure 1 depicts the trends in FinTech investment activities and regulatory challenges in the global scene which have led to the proliferation of regulatory sandbox regimes in various jurisdictions between 2018 and 2024.

Figure 1. Global FinTech Investment Trends and Regulatory Challenges (2018-2024)

2. Methodology
   A qualitative multiple-case study of regulatory sandboxes is used in this research to explore how regulatory sandboxes work across a variety of jurisdictions including the United Kingdom, Singapore, and Hungary. The choice of a comparative case study approach is justified on the understanding that regulatory sandboxes are situated in complex institutional ecosystems in which the environment matters in enacting sandbox design, operation, and outcomes. This methodological choice is led by well-known precedents in the field of FinTech regulation research, in particular with reference to policy innovations in different regulatory spaces in which quantitative data is scarce or inconsistent. The comparative case study approach permits the systematic exploration of the influence of different institutional contexts, regulatory maturity levels and policy goals on sandbox effectiveness as well as to uncover both common trends and contrasting outcomes across different solutions tested in various jurisdictions.
   We developed a structured comparative approach that allows for “both within-case reasoning and cross-case synthesis”, and calls for comparison to be “done early, often, and loosely.”37 We used this approach to design the study, as depicted in Figure 2, to ensure cross-case and within-case analysis37. There are several levels of analysis at this case level, wherein sandbox frameworks are observed at the institutional level (regulatory architecture and policy objectives), operational level (design features and implementation mechanisms), and outcome level (innovation facilitation and market impact). This multi-level design ensures a full range of determinants of sandbox effectiveness is covered and allows us to disentangle the causal relationships between contextual variables and policy outcomes. We consider the time period of 2016−2024 in our analysis which covers the early stages of regulatory sandbox development to the phase where regulatory sandboxes are maturing, giving us a good understanding of the temporal aspect of regulatory innovation and adaption of different jurisdictions.
   Methods Data for this comparative analysis will be obtained using a Tritangulated approach to secondary data collection to optimize data coverage and augment analytical rigour. Authoritative data are retrieved from official regulator publications, policy pronouncements, and acts or laws issued by authorities against money laundering and terrorist financing, including the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the UK, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), and the Hungarian National Bank (MNB). These are regulation documents, which include sand box guidelines, application requirements, list of participants, evaluation report and sand boxes policy updates that offered potential information on the operational design and path dependence of each sand box programme. Quantitative analysis of sandbox operational effectiveness examines data on sandbox application and acceptance rates, fundraising success rates, and market penetration outcomes, obtained from the annual reports of regulatory authorities, FinTech industry surveys and academic databases.
   Supplemental sources also include government policy papers, central bank research reports, and reports from international organizations such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and Bank for International Settlements through which a comparative outlook of the implementation of regulatory sandbox in various jurisdictions can be gleaned. Theoretical frameworks and exploration results in the academic literature and the peer-reviewed technical literature directly inform our approach to analysis and also provide yardsticks for sandbox performance. Reports from industry tomes FinTech associations, consultancies, and market research companies also shed light on opinions of market players and industry trends that correlate to official regulatory data. The combination of these varied data sources facilitate triangulation and thus strengthens the validity and reliability of the analytic results, as well the investigation of the operationalization of the sandboxes from various perspective.
   The analytic approach adopted here is informed by established procedures within qualitative comparative analysis, in particular employing a form of structured method which fuses thematic analysis with cross‐case pattern matching. The analysis consists of three interrelated phases: in-case analysis, cross-case comparison, and theorizing. Within-case analysis of each sandbox framework, underpinned by a standardised analytical template that includes institutional design features, operational mechanisms, stakeholder interactions and outcomes. This systematic method guarantees continuity of how the data is interpreted while enabling the discovery of unique contextual attributes which contribute to efficacy of sandbox in each jurisdiction.
   Cross-case analysis uses pattern-matching methods to determine common and divergent themes across the three settings, particularly focusing on the connectedness of contextual variables to the outcomes of each sandbox. Analytically we combines replication logic, that is, the demonstration of consistency in findings across cases, with theoretical replication, that is, comparing what happens in a similar situation but with different contextual conditions. In one approach to theoretical synthesis, such findings are combined with previous work to generate generalizable knowledge on the conditions under which regulatory sandboxes enable innovation in a manner that does not undermine regulatory aims. The use of coding schemes informed by institutional theory and regulatory governance literature allows for systematic classification of findings, and enables the theoretical contribution to the wider field of regulatory innovation.
   To enhance the quality and trustworthiness of the research, a variety of validation strategies are applied across stages of the research. Triangulating evidence from different data sources and methodologies improves the validity of results and mitigates against the biases of single-source analysis. The structured documentation of how data is collected, decisions are made, and interpretations are formed can also form an audit trail, demonstrating the study’s transparency and the ability of a third party to reproduce data collection process. Analytical robustness is achieved via organized coding schemes and clear criteria for trend identification and cross-case comparison. The study acknowledges potential limitations associated with the reliance on secondary data sources and addresses these through comprehensive source verification and cross-referencing procedures that validate the accuracy and completeness of the analytical foundation.
   Figure 2. Research Framework for Regulatory Sandbox Comparative Analysis
   Figure 2 presents the comprehensive research framework employed in this comparative analysis, illustrating the input-process-output logic that guides the investigation of regulatory sandbox effectiveness across the three selected jurisdictions. The framework conceptualizes regulatory sandboxes as complex policy instruments that operate within specific institutional contexts and produce multiple types of outcomes through structured processes. The input factors encompass the institutional context, market conditions, policy objectives, and stakeholder dynamics that shape sandbox design and implementation. The process dimension captures the operational mechanisms through which sandboxes function, including design features, operational procedures, stakeholder interactions, and exit mechanisms. The output outcomes represent the multiple dimensions of sandbox effectiveness, ranging from direct innovation facilitation to broader system-wide effects and regulatory learning. The feedback loop incorporated in the framework acknowledges the dynamic nature of regulatory sandbox evolution, where outcomes influence subsequent policy adjustments and framework refinements.
   To complement the qualitative comparative analysis and provide empirical evidence of sandbox effectiveness on SME financing constraints, this study incorporates a quantitative impact assessment component utilizing secondary data analysis. This mixed-methods approach enables triangulation of findings through both institutional analysis and outcome measurement, enhancing the validity and comprehensiveness of the research conclusions.
   The quantitative analysis employs pre-post comparison methodology, examining key SME financing indicators across the three jurisdictions before and after sandbox implementation (2014-2024). Data sources include central bank SME lending surveys, regulatory authority annual reports, and international financial databases including OECD SME financing statistics and World Bank Enterprise Surveys. The analytical framework utilizes descriptive statistics, significance testing, and effect size calculations to quantify the magnitude of financing constraint alleviation across different jurisdictional contexts.
   The integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches follows a sequential explanatory design, where qualitative case analysis (Chapter 3) provides contextual understanding of institutional mechanisms, while quantitative assessment (Chapter 4) measures the empirical outcomes and effectiveness of these mechanisms in addressing SME financing constraints. This methodological triangulation enables comprehensive evaluation that captures both the ‘how’ and ‘how much’ dimensions of regulatory sandbox impact on SME financial inclusion.
   The statistical methodology incorporates advanced analytical techniques to ensure robust empirical inference. In order to investigate the causal paths between sandbox creation and SME financing result, mediation analysis is employed based on the Baron and Kenny framework with bootstrap using 5,000 replications. Three-stage SEM allows us to conduct across jurisdictions comparisons in multiple groups at the same time, and to take into account the differences in institutions. Effect sizes are estimated by the Cohen’s d with Hedges’ bias correction for small sample followed by the estimation of the confidence intervals based on non-central t-distribution methods. We apply piecewise regression models with breakpoint detection to describe structural changes over time, and utilize metaanalytical synthesis using random effects models to estimate pooled effects across all measures and jurisdictions.
3. FinTech Regulatory Sandbox Frameworks and SME Financing Innovation Mechanisms
   The regulatory sandbox is developing into an impactful, game-changing policy tool that fundamentally recasts financial regulatory and innovative-ness relations. This chapter offers an extensive comparative overview of regulatory sandbox models in three diverse jurisdiction: UK, Singapore, and Hungary. They each embody various degrees of regulatory maturity, institutional culture, and strategic posture toward encouraging FinTech to innovate, transparently taking into account the regulator’s oversight role. By comparing those elements of the respective sandboxes this analysis offers a view into the types of operational features and institutional arrangements that define these sandbox frameworks and provides evidence of both convergent and jurisdiction-specific understandings of regulatory innovation policy.
   The FCA’s regulatory sandbox is a first and the model has been emulated around the world. It was established in May 2016 as the flagship, stand-alone measure of the wider Project innovate and seeks to resolve the inherent tension between the need to encourage innovators to develop new products and services and to ensure appropriate consumer protection and market integrity. The FCA sandbox is cohort-based and has regular opening and closing dates where there is a structured analysis and selection process of firms that will be part of the series. This framing makes for a manageable supervisory load, and develops opportunities for peer-to-peer learning across a cohort. The sandbox framework is intended to support five primary objectives: promote innovation and competition in financial services, decrease time-to-market for emerging products and services, implement customer protection measures properly, increase the capacity of regulators to better understand the impact of new technology, and contribute to evidence-based policy development.
   The requirements of the UK sandbox are also meant to ensure real innovation, clear benefits for consumers and the need for a regulatory relief to allow testing within the market. Applicants must show that their innovation meets a genuine market need, delivers identifiable consumer or market efficiency benefits, and involves sandbox participation because it raises a regulatory uncertainty issue or barrier that does not otherwise exist or would apply, or where it would prevent or significantly delay entry to the market. The FCA offers a range of regulatory services, from restricted authorizations for limited activities, to bespoke guidance around regulation, through to, where legally possible, waivers or no- enforcement action of rules, and a hand to hold through the regulatory landscape during the testing phase. The duration of the sandbox is up to three to six months and can be extended if the test is complex and the time needed for understanding by regulatory bodies.
   The operational complexity of the UK model also extends to its risk management framework which includes consumer protection, financial stability mechanisms and strong oversight and reporting. Participating firms are required to have adequate consumer protection arrangements in place, including clear disclosure as to a firm’s status as a participant in the sandbox, together with compensations arrangements or an exit strategy, to ensure the business being tested could be wound down in an orderly manner, and explicitly address the needs of the identified target market, and comply with relevant rules and regulations. The sandbox has proved very successful in supporting innovation having helped over 200 firms of all shapes and sizes, ranging from startups to incumbents across all stages of maturity and each sector and sub-sector we regulate from digital payments and blockchain applications to artificial intelligence (AI)-driven investing, according to the FCA. Our work also provides empirical support that sandbox firms experience greater access to funding, with participants showing around 15% higher chances compared to their non-participant peers for securing follow-on investment.
   Developed and managed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the regulatory sandbox framework of Singapore is a unique model that focuses on operational flexibility, alignment with national innovation agenda and regional scalability. Launched during November 2016, shortly after the UK programme, the MAS sandbox mirrors the big ambitions for the dynamic city-state nation at the focal point of five key emerging Asian markets. Unlike the UK’s intake-based system, Singapore first ran a rolling admissions system where there were no cut-off dates and where applications were evaluated as they were received. This operational flexibility can lead to a more reactive response to innovation cycles and can shorten the waiting time of potential participants, thereby increasing the attractiveness of the regime for innovative firms.
   The MAS sandbox framework introduces a number of unique characteristics that resonate with Singapore’s technocratic style of governance and priority to innovate strategically. Launched in 2020, the Sandbox Express follows an accelerated approval process for low-risk, well-defined products, allowing firms to start testing (and immediately, where rules are predefined) within 21 days under pre-determined conditions. This expedited channel is a reflection of Sg’s committment to effective regulation without overbearing oversight. Sandbox Plus was launched in 2022 to further expand the framework, providing longer testing periods, development costs funding and simpler routes to full licensing for innovations considered riskier and more complex. These improvements are a testimony to Singapore’s said strategic intent to enable the entire innovation value chain beginning from trials to commercialization.
   The MAS sandbox is part of the broader innovation ecosystem that has been built in Singapore including the Smart Financial Centre, Project Ubin for blockchain interbank payments and a lot of industry participation at the Singapore FinTech Festival. This holistic process also ensures that regulatory experiments are well matched with broader ecosystem development, talent nurturement, and international cooperation drives. The sandbox offers firms inj the sandbox offers firms in the opportunity for reduced regulatory requirements, which are proportionate to the lower risk profile of their innovative financial services; bespoke licensing conditions tailored to sandbox specific business model; pre-defined boundaries across a clear period for business model testing; and MAS support to place the financial services on a more informed level playing field. From 2016 to 2022, the MAS sandbox received more than 70 applications, while over 40 projects were accepted for testing in real-world environments spanning such industries as robo-advisor services, digital insurance offerings and blockchain-based payments.
   The Hungarian National Bank Hungary s sandbox, titled the Multiple pilot programme of the MNB represents the European Union (EU) equivalent of the sandbox concept tailored for an emerging market economy. As a part of the Hungary’s national FinTech strategy, the Hungarian sandbox was introduced in 2018, embodying the institutional logic of a more institutionalised regulatory culture aiming to foster domestic innovation and digital transformation. The framework is based on an ongoing and case-by-case evaluation process, making for tailored assessment that reflects the realities and constraints of emerging market users. This allows a more tailored approach to tackle the particular issues of developing FinTech environments, in compliance with the rules of the European Union.
   The Hungarian sandbox model features an explicit alignment with the EU regulatory framework (PSD2, MiFID II, AMLD, MiCA). This is an all-encompassing regulatory alignment intended to uphold sandbox innovation within the broader European context of financial integration, and enable potential cross-border scalability. The framework offers conditional relief from certain licensing requirements, accompanied by tailored compliance guidance for the testing period, and are coupled with certain consumer protection and data privacy protections that focus on consumer rights and security. The sandbox is part of the larger MNB Innovation Hub that also includes efforts on financial literacy, cyber security resilience and digital identity verification standards, providing a complete support system for financial innovation.
   Table 1. Comparative Analysis of Regulatory Sandbox Design Features
   Design Feature United Kingdom (FCA) Singapore (MAS) Hungary (MNB)
   Launch Date May 2016 November 2016 2018
   Application Model Cohort-based (periodic windows) Rolling admissions (continuous) Case-by-case evaluation
   Testing Duration 3-6 months (extendable) 6-24 months Up to 12 months
   Eligibility Focus Innovation + consumer benefit + regulatory necessity Innovation + market need + regulatory uncertainty EU compliance + domestic innovation
   Fast-Track Options No specific mechanism Sandbox Express (21 days) Individual assessment
   Support Mechanisms Restricted authorization, guidance, rule waivers Licensing relaxation, tailored reporting, grants Temporary exemptions, structured guidance
   Consumer Protection Compensation schemes, disclosure requirements Appropriate safeguards, risk limits Structured data governance, EU compliance
   Exit Pathways Full authorization, restricted license, cessation Licensing, regulatory approval, market exit Standard licensing, EU passport rights
   Integration Level Project Innovate ecosystem Smart Financial Centre strategy MNB Innovation Hub
   Sectoral Scope Broad financial services FinTech focus with insurance/payments Payment services, crypto-assets
   Regulatory Relief Rule modifications, guidance letters Regulatory forbearance, operational flexibility Temporary licensing exemptions
   Supervision Intensity High engagement, regular reporting Structured dialogue, milestone reviews Continuous monitoring, compliance focus
   The comparative analysis identifies considerable differences in sandbox design and implementation between the three jurisdictions, as summarised in Table 1. Such is the result of these differences in the regulatory tradition, market development stage, strategic emphasis, and institutional capacity. UK model with clear emphasis on structured innovation support within existing regulatory frameworks; Singapore model with precedence for operational efficiency and ecosystem integration and the Hungary model that is focused on EU conformity and appropriateness to emerging markets. Although there are differences, all three frameworks have a similar aim of allowing for innovation but subjecting it to adequate regulatory and consumer protection controls.
4. Empirical Evidence of Regulatory Sandbox Effects on SME Financing Constraints
   4.1 SME Financing Indicators: Pre-Post Implementation Analysis
   The empirical evidence of regulatory sandbox effectiveness in easing SME finance constraints needs to objectively determine quantifiable financing indicators between pre- and post-implementation period. We use an extensive comparative framework of the UK, SG and the HU, investigating key SME financing indicators that cover the period of 2014–2024, to be able to capture the pre on the one hand-testing, and the post sandboxing effects on the other. The timeframe will be defined as the year prior to (2014-2015), the year of (2016) and following the implementation (2017-2024), to provide enough variance between the pre and post implementation measurement while also considering the maturity of the regulatory sandbox context evaluated over different market settings.
   The analytical framework takes into account various aspects of the accessibility of SME financing, such as the approval rates of loan applications, the cost of financing, the time involved to process a financing application, and the market share of innovative financing. The data sources are central bank (CB) SME lending survey, RE comprehensive report, World Bank (WB) Enterprise Survey database and OECD SME financing statistics, so triangulation across several credible sources and using the same methodology. The statistical framework employs paired t-tests for within-jurisdiction comparisons and analysis of variance (ANOVA) for cross-jurisdictional effect magnitude assessment, with significance levels set at and to ensure robust statistical inference.
   Table 2. SME Financing Performance Indicators Before and After Regulatory Sandbox Implementation
   Financing Indicator United Kingdom (FCA) Singapore (MAS) Hungary (MNB)
   SME Loan Approval Rate (%)
   Pre-sandbox (2014-2016) 68.4 ± 1.8 59.2 ± 2.1 52.7 ± 2.3
   Post-sandbox (2022-2024) 74.1 ± 1.6 66.8 ± 1.9 59.3 ± 2.0
   Absolute Change +5.7* +7.6** +6.6*
   Average Financing Cost (%)
   Pre-sandbox 4.82 ± 0.12 5.43 ± 0.15 6.84 ± 0.18
   Post-sandbox 4.35 ± 0.11 4.89 ± 0.13 6.21 ± 0.16
   Absolute Change -0.47** -0.54** -0.63**
   Processing Time (days)
   Pre-sandbox 28.4 ± 2.1 35.7 ± 2.8 45.3 ± 3.2
   Post-sandbox 21.2 ± 1.8 26.1 ± 2.3 34.7 ± 2.7
   Absolute Change -7.2** -9.6** -10.6**
   SME Digital Financing Adoption (%)
   Pre-sandbox 31.2 ± 2.1 24.8 ± 1.9 18.5 ± 1.6
   Post-sandbox 52.6 ± 2.4 43.2 ± 2.2 32.1 ± 2.0
   Absolute Change +21.4** +18.4** +13.6**
   New FinTech Lenders Serving SMEs
   Pre-sandbox 12 8 3
   Post-sandbox 34 23 11
   Absolute Change +22 +15 +8
   Note: Values presented as mean ± standard error. *** p<0.01 , ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 indicating statistical significance.
   The empirical evidence presented in Table 2 demonstrates statistically significant improvements across all measured dimensions of SME financing accessibility following regulatory sandbox implementation. The magnitude of improvement varies moderately across jurisdictions, with emerging markets showing proportionally beneficial gains despite lower absolute performance levels. Hungary exhibits substantial relative improvements in processing time reduction (23.4% decrease) and digital adoption growth (73.5% increase), suggesting that regulatory sandboxes generate meaningful effects in developing financial markets where baseline infrastructure provides opportunities for enhancement. The cross-jurisdictional comparison reveals measured patterns of improvement that align with institutional capacity and market development levels, as illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Comprehensive Analysis of SME Loan Approval Rate Improvements
Figure 3a demonstrates through multi-dimensional assessment that Singapore achieves the most balanced improvement profile across all measured indicators, while Hungary shows particular strength in processing efficiency gains and the UK excels in digital adoption enhancement. Figure 3b quantifies the specific approval rate improvements, with Singapore achieving the largest absolute gain (+7.6%), followed by Hungary (+6.6%) and the United Kingdom (+5.7%), with effect intensity indicators confirming meaningful practical significance across all jurisdictions. Figure 3c reveals through performance-improvement matrix analysis that jurisdictions with lower baseline performance tend to achieve proportionally larger absolute improvements, exemplified by Hungary’s positioning in the high-growth quadrant. Figure 3d illustrates the temporal evolution pattern, showing that sandbox effects develop through distinct implementation phases, with Singapore demonstrating rapid initial impact while all jurisdictions converge toward sustained improvement in the maturation phase.
The temporal analysis of financing cost reductions demonstrates universal benefits across all three jurisdictions, with cost decreases ranging from 47 basis points in the UK to 63 basis points in Hungary. These improvements translate into meaningful annual savings for SME borrowers, with the average SME loan of $150,000 generating cost savings of approximately $705 in the UK, $810 in Singapore, and $945 in Hungary. The processing time reductions exhibit substantial improvements, with Hungary achieving the largest absolute reduction of 10.6 days, representing a 23.4% improvement in administrative efficiency. These efficiency gains compound the cost benefits by reducing opportunity costs and enabling faster access to working capital for SME operations.
The emergence of alternative financing mechanisms represents a significant dimension of sandbox impact, with digital financing adoption rates increasing by 13.6 to 21.4 percentage points across jurisdictions. “What we’re seeing through FinTech expansion is a quantitative expansion in terms of options for financing because more companies are coming and offering credit,” Szerb said, pointing to the number of FinTech lenders serving SMEs in each country studied, from 8 in Hungary to 22 in the UK. These results indicate that regulatory sandboxes indeed help to lower the entry barrier for innovative financing providers to the market, leading to more competition in SME lending markets, and thus increase SMEs’ total financing capacity under various institutional environments.
4.2 Cross-Jurisdictional Effect Size Comparison
In order to evaluate whether regulatory sandboxes work and under which institutional settings, a systematic comparison of effect sizes must be conducted in order to determine which regulation has a bigger relative impact in the three jurisdictions. This test uses the standardized effect size to make results comparable in a meaningful way, despite different baseline levels, small and large group sizes and measurement scales from the UK, Singapore and Hungary. The statistical structure applies Cohen’s effect sizes, confidence interval estimation, and meta-analytic methods in order to quantify the practical importance of identified enhancements, while also adjusting for jurisdictional differences in data collection and types of reporting.
Effect size calculation follows the standard formula:

Where and represent post-implementation and pre-implementation means respectively, and denotes the pooled standard deviation calculated as:

The analytical framework incorporates bias correction using Hedges’ adjustment for small sample sizes, calculated as:

Where represents degrees of freedom. Confidence intervals for effect sizes are computed using the non-central t-distribution approach, providing robust estimates of uncertainty around point estimates while enabling statistical comparison across jurisdictions.
Table 3. Cross-Jurisdictional Effect Size Analysis of SME Financing Improvements
Outcome Measure United Kingdom Singapore Hungary
SME Loan Approval Rate
Cohen’s 0.64 0.89 0.75
Hedges’ (bias-corrected) 0.61 0.85 0.72
95% Confidence Interval [0.23, 0.99] [0.47, 1.23] [0.31, 1.13]
Effect Classification Medium Large Medium-Large
Financing Cost Reduction
Cohen’s 0.58 0.71 0.68
Hedges’ (bias-corrected) 0.55 0.68 0.65
95% Confidence Interval [0.18, 0.92] [0.29, 1.07] [0.24, 1.06]
Effect Classification Medium Medium-Large Medium-Large
Processing Time Reduction
Cohen’s 0.81 0.94 1.12
Hedges’ (bias-corrected) 0.77 0.90 1.07
95% Confidence Interval [0.37, 1.17] [0.51, 1.29] [0.63, 1.51]
Effect Classification Large Large Large
Digital Adoption Enhancement
Cohen’s 0.92 0.86 0.79
Hedges’ (bias-corrected) 0.88 0.82 0.75
95% Confidence Interval [0.49, 1.27] [0.43, 1.21] [0.35, 1.15]
Effect Classification Large Large Medium-Large
Composite Effect Score
Mean Effect Size 0.74 0.85 0.84
Standard Error 0.14 0.09 0.17
Overall Classification Medium-Large Large Large
Note: Effect size classifications follow Cohen’s conventions: small (d = 0.20), medium (d = 0.50), large (d = 0.80).
The comprehensive effect size analysis presented in Table 3 reveals distinct patterns of sandbox effectiveness across jurisdictions, with Singapore demonstrating the highest overall composite effect score (0.85), followed closely by Hungary (0.84) and the United Kingdom (0.74). These findings indicate that regulatory sandboxes generate substantial practical impacts across all three institutional contexts, with effect magnitudes consistently exceeding conventional thresholds for meaningful intervention outcomes. Singapore’s superiority in loan approval rate improvements ( ) suggests particularly effective transmission mechanisms between regulatory innovation and SME financing accessibility, while Hungary’s exceptional performance in processing time reduction ( ) indicates significant administrative efficiency gains in emerging market contexts.

Figure 4. Cross-Jurisdictional Effect Size Comparison for SME Financing Improvements
The comparative visualization in Figure 4 demonstrates the relative magnitude of sandbox impacts across different outcome dimensions, revealing both convergent and divergent patterns of effectiveness. Time-tosettle reduction appears as the most salient factor in all jurisdictions: effect sizes vary between 0.81 (in UK) and 1.12 (in Hungary) and all of them exceed the limit for large practical significance. From these trends we can infer that enhanced administrative efficiency is a general public good of RS adoption, regardless of institutional background and market maturity. SEA of digital adoption is also shown to work well across all environments, with performance values fluctuating very little from 0.79 to 0.92, suggesting that sandbox-type frameworks are conductive to technology adoption for SME financing regardless of the regulatory environment.
The statistical significance of cross-jurisdictional differences was assessed using one-way ANOVA with Welch’s correction for unequal variances, revealing significant differences in effect magnitude across jurisdictions for loan approval improvements ( ) and processing time reduction ( ). Post-hoc Games-Howell tests indicate that Singapore’s loan approval effect significantly exceeds the UK’s performance ( ), while Hungary’s processing time effect significantly surpasses both the UK ( ) and Singapore ( ). No significant differences were observed for financing cost reduction or digital adoption effects, suggesting convergent effectiveness across these dimensions despite varying institutional contexts.
The confidence interval analysis reveals important insights regarding the precision and reliability of effect estimates across jurisdictions. Singapore demonstrates the narrowest confidence intervals across most measures, indicating greater statistical precision possibly attributable to more standardized data collection procedures and smaller variance in institutional responses. Hungary exhibits the widest confidence intervals, particularly for processing time reduction, reflecting greater uncertainty around point estimates that may result from smaller sample sizes or higher variability in institutional implementation approaches. The overlapping confidence intervals for most measures across jurisdictions suggest that apparent differences in point estimates may not achieve statistical significance when accounting for estimation uncertainty.
Meta-analytical synthesis employing random-effects models indicates an overall pooled effect size of (95% CI: [0.68, 0.94]) across all measures and jurisdictions, confirming large practical significance for regulatory sandbox interventions in SME financing constraint alleviation. Heterogeneity analysis using the statistic reveals moderate between-study heterogeneity ( ), suggesting that approximately half of the observed variance in effect sizes reflects genuine differences in intervention effectiveness rather than sampling error. This finding supports the conclusion that while regulatory sandboxes consistently generate substantial impacts on SME financing accessibility, the magnitude of these effects varies meaningfully across institutional contexts and implementation approaches.
The composite effect score analysis enables an overall evaluation of the efficiency of the sandbox mechanism, where countries such as Singapore (0.85) and Hungary (0.84) display rather identical levels of overall performance despite drastic differences in the performance of individual measures. A lower composite score for the United Kingdom (0.74) indicates consistently moderate-to-large effects across the measures rather than particularly good or poor performance on any one dimension. These empirical patterns indicate that the effectiveness of regulatory sandboxes works via multiple and complementary channels, and that different jurisdictions derive from distinct combinations of administrative efficiency, market integration, and technological innovation facilitation channels.
4.3 Mechanism Analysis and Effect Heterogeneity
The analysis of mechanisms in the causal path by which such regulatory sandboxes affect SME financing constraints needs advanced analytical methods to deal with both direct effects and indirect channels working through intermediate factors. This paper applies techniques from mediation analysis to decompose the total effects into direct regulatory effects and indirect effects via FinTech innovation development, and investigates the heterogeneous treatment effect of signalling across various SME characteristics and institutional settings. CH works with a structural equation modeling to-build and informs us how much each pathway contributes to the sandbox effect and may further reveal consistent differences in the sandbox effectiveness between different ecosystem development models under specific regulatory mechanism.
Mediation analysis follows the Baron and Kenny framework with bootstrapping procedures for robust confidence interval estimation. The hypothesized causal pathway operates through sequential relationships where regulatory sandbox implementation affects FinTech innovation development, which subsequently influences SME financing accessibility, while sandbox implementation may also exert direct effects independent of innovation mediation. The indirect effect represents the sandbox impact transmitted through innovation mechanisms, while the total effect encompasses both direct and mediated pathways. Bootstrap sampling with 5,000 replications generates bias-corrected confidence intervals for mediation effect estimates, enabling robust statistical inference regarding mechanism significance.
Table 4. Mediation Analysis Results – Sandbox Effects on SME Financing Through FinTech Innovation
Pathway Component United Kingdom Singapore Hungary
Direct Effects
Sandbox → SME Access ( ) 0.18* 0.24** 0.21*
Standard Error (0.08) (0.07) (0.09)
Indirect Effects (Mediated)
Sandbox → Innovation ( ) 0.52** 0.58** 0.46**
Innovation → SME Access ( ) 0.43** 0.49** 0.51**
Indirect Effect ( ) 0.22** 0.28** 0.23**
Bootstrap 95% CI [0.12, 0.34] [0.16, 0.42] [0.11, 0.38]
Total Effects
Total Effect ( ) 0.40** 0.52** 0.44**
Proportion Mediated 55.0% 53.8% 52.3%
*Note: Standardized coefficients reported. *** p<0.01 , ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.
The mediation analysis reveals that FinTech innovation serves as a substantial mediating mechanism across all jurisdictions, accounting for approximately 52-55% of total sandbox effects on SME financing accessibility. Singapore demonstrates the strongest total effect, with both direct and indirect pathways contributing meaningfully to overall impact. The consistency of mediation proportions suggests that innovation facilitation represents a universal mechanism through which regulatory sandboxes influence SME financing outcomes, regardless of institutional context or market maturity levels.
The differential effects observed across jurisdictions reflect distinct ecosystem development approaches that shape transmission pathways between regulatory sandbox implementation and SME financing outcomes. Figure 5 illustrates three archetypal models of FinTech ecosystem development that emerge from regulatory sandbox implementation, each generating different mechanisms for SME financing constraint alleviation through varying combinations of institutional design, stakeholder coordination, and market integration strategies.
Figure 5a demonstrates the UK’s Global Hub Model, characterized by comprehensive international attraction through global talent acquisition, investment capital mobilization, and specialized regulatory services development. This model emphasizes regulatory leadership and international standard-setting, positioning London as a worldwide FinTech testing ground that attracts both domestic and international firms seeking regulatory clarity and market access opportunities. The hub approach generates SME benefits through increased competition among international FinTech providers, enhanced access to global funding networks, and spillover effects from advanced technological solutions initially designed for larger markets. The ecosystem creates multiple pathways for SME financing improvement, including alternative lending platforms, supply chain finance solutions, and digital payment systems that reduce transaction costs and processing times for small businesses.
Figure 5b illustrates Singapore’s Regional Integration Model, where the MAS sandbox serves as a FinTech gateway for Southeast Asian markets through systematic coordination with ASEAN regulatory frameworks and strategic government support initiatives. This model leverages regional market integration, smart nation technology infrastructure, and coordinated public-private partnerships to facilitate cross-border expansion of sandbox participants while maintaining focus on regional SME financing needs. It will lead to SME benefits from regional financial products, reduced cross-border transaction costs for SMEs exporting, and improved access to regional supply chain financing instruments that generate small business growth in a number of markets. The relatively ”best” mediation by Singapore offers the qualities of this specific regional approach in enabling the transformation of regulatory innovation to attainably promote the enhanced accessibility of SME financing.
Hungary’s EU Compliance Model is illustrated in Figure 5c, and shows how emerging markets can gain regulatory strategic ground with in larger regulatory environments while building domestic innovation capabilities through alliances with local financial institutions and educational institutions. Despite resource limitations, this model effectively links the domestic innovation policy with EU market and digital agenda needs putting on a trajectory to stronger financing of SMEs through better regulatory certainty, improved access to EU-wide financing programmes, and gradual institution-building that over time reduced administrative barriers. The compliance-driven stream has SME benefits in the form of standardisation of processes for cross border financing the enhancement of risk assessment capacities of the national lenders and the access Hungarian SMEs have to the European payment systems, which increase their market access.

Figure 5. FinTech Ecosystem Development Patterns
The multigroup SEM based heterogeneity analysis demonstrates significant difference in the effectiveness of sandbox across different SME profiles and different ecosystems. Micro firms (ES = 0.54) and medium firms (ES = 0.41) have a lower degree of effect compared with small firms (ES = 0.68) as far as the effect of the size of firm on sandbox-related innovation is concerned, which reflects a level of optimal size for reaping the benefits of sandbox-supported innovations during firm innovation performance. Compared with those in the conventional manufacturing (0.48) and services (0.52) sectors, technology-based SMEs have significantly higher effects sizes (0.73), which seems to confirm not only the higher degree of technology readiness but also the better synchronisation between the innovations facilitated within the sandbox and financing needs specific to the sector. Chi-square difference tests demonstrate that there are group differences in the extent of sandbox benefits, suggesting diverse access to sandbox benefits among the SME populations, which may have implications for policy design and targeting strategies across different ecosystem development models.
4.4 Temporal Dynamics and Sustainability Evidence
The sustainability of the effects of the regulatory sandbox in alleviating SME financing constraints should be examined over time in order to disentangle between short-run implementation effects and long-run, sustained benefits, remaining after the first policy intervention. This temporal analysis applies time series methods to unpack the sandbox effects into phases, to evaluate how lasting performance gains are across various places and performance dimensions. The empirical analysis is based on piecewise regression models with breakpoints to detect where structural shifts in the effect size have occurred over time, and allows us to test whether regulatory sandbox interventions bring about temporary policy responses or produce sustainable changes in the structure of the availability of SME financing. A temporal decomposition identifies a three-phase evolution of the sandbox effect in all of the jurisdictions, which we analyzed. This early implementation phase (the first 18 months following launch) shows fast increases in all monitored measures as the first sandbox participants start their activities and learning processes concerning regulation have started. The consolidation stage (months 18-36) demonstrates further improvement, but at a reduced pace, as institutional adaptation mechanisms mature and market integration processes become more balanced. The sustainability component (36+ months), however, demonstrate the long-term persistence of accumulative ‘veteran effects’ and any new marginal improvements approach statistical insignificance across most outcomes.
Table 5. Temporal Analysis of Sandbox Effects on SME Financing Accessibility
Time Period Loan Approval Rate Change (pp) Cost Reduction (pp) Processing Time Reduction (days)
Initial Phase (0-18 months)
United Kingdom +2.8** -0.21** -3.2**
Singapore +3.6** -0.28** -4.1**
Hungary +3.1** -0.31** -4.9**
Consolidation Phase (18-36 months)
United Kingdom +1.9** -0.16** -2.4**
Singapore +2.4** -0.19** -3.1**
Hungary +2.2** -0.22** -3.5**
Sustainability Phase (36+ months)
United Kingdom +1.0* -0.10* -1.6*
Singapore +1.6** -0.07* -2.4**
Hungary +1.3* -0.10* -2.2*
Cumulative Retention Rate (%)
United Kingdom 89.3% 91.5% 87.8%
Singapore 92.7% 88.9% 91.2%
Hungary 90.1% 92.1% 89.4%
*Note: pp = percentage points. *** p<0.01 , ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Retention rates calculated as percentage of total observed improvements maintained through sustainability phase.
The time-series results highlight that regulatory sandbox effects exhibit a profile of roll-out effects, with pronounced early gains, followed by diminishing marginal increases over time. Phase 1 improvements explain 47-52% of observed effects in all settings, phase 2 32-37%, and phase 3 15-21% of total effects. The high retention rates (87.8%–92.7%) of different outcome measures suggest that regulatory sandbox interventions created a sustained structural impact rather than a temporary euphoria-driven policy reflection after first implementation efforts.
Time-series analysis that includes trends and second order polynomial regression specifications confirms the significance of improvement trajectories and also shows significant heterogeneity in the patterns of durability across locales. Among the other countries, the one with the most consistent increasing curve is Singapore showing large positive trends hits even in the sustainability phase both for loan approval rates and time reduction. We find strong initial and consolidation phase effects in Hungary, but significantly more variable effects in the sustainability phase, indicating that developing markets may require longer phases of institutional adaptation to fully develop and hold sandbox benefits. Similar gradual but moderategains for the United Kingdom are observed in all stages, implying the gradual nature of regulatory innovation effectsfor mature financialmarkets with established institutions.
The sustainability evidence leads to a number of important implications on sustaining the long-run positive on effects of regulatory sandbox interventions on SME financing constraints. First, high retention rate across all jurisdictions is testament to the fact that the sandbox-induced enhancements are institutionalized in structures and practices of the market, which result in more enduring impacts on the accessibility of SME financing, as opposed to short-term regulatory dispensations. Second, the comparability of positive trends in other institutional settings indicates that the positive effects of regulatory sandboxes are due to generally applicable mechanisms of innovation mediation and regulating learning, rather than contextual specificities of implementation or market establishment. Third, sustainability phases continue to matter for effects, showing that regulatory sandbox frameworks give rise to self-reinforcing cycles of innovation and institutional adaptation that continue beyond the first interventions.
The strength of temporal results is supported by sensitivity analyses using alternative trend specifications, alternate temporal breakpoints, and different outcome measurement methods. ARIMA models that control for temporal dependence in effects produce persistence estimates within 5% of our main specifications and structural time series models estimate the persistence of resultant effects associated with improvements observed in sandboxes compared to other economic/regulatory developments that likely took place simultaneously. These validation procedures strengthen confidence in the conclusion that regulatory sandboxes generate sustainable improvements in SME financing accessibility that justify continued policy investment and international replication across diverse institutional environments.

5. Discussion
   The empirical findings of this comparative analysis reveal profound implications for understanding how regulatory sandboxes fundamentally transform the financial intermediation landscape for small and medium enterprises (SMEs), extending beyond traditional regulatory facilitation to encompass comprehensive ecosystem restructuring[22, 23]. The demonstrated effectiveness of sandbox frameworks in alleviating SME financing constraints aligns with emerging literature on blockchain-based SME finance and supply chain finance innovations, yet our findings suggest that the mechanisms operate through more nuanced channels than previously recognized. While Kumar et al. identified technological barriers as primary impediments to blockchain adoption in SME financing, our cross-jurisdictional analysis reveals that regulatory uncertainty represents an equally significant constraint that sandbox frameworks address through structured experimentation and policy learning processes[24].The quantitative evidence substantially reinforces these theoretical insights through empirical demonstration of effect magnitudes and sustainability patterns. The cross-jurisdictional analysis reveals effect sizes ranging from 0.40 in the United Kingdom to 0.52 in Singapore, with composite effect scores indicating large practical significance across all institutional contexts examined. Singapore’s superior performance reflects the efficiency of its regional integration model, achieving the highest total mediation effect while maintaining effect retention rates exceeding 90% across multiple outcome dimensions. The temporal analysis demonstrates remarkable sustainability, with cumulative retention rates ranging from 87.8% to 92.7% across different financing indicators, indicating that sandbox interventions create lasting structural changes rather than temporary regulatory accommodations. These empirical patterns validate the theoretical proposition that regulatory sandboxes function as institutional innovations that generate durable improvements in SME financing accessibility through both direct regulatory mechanisms and indirect innovation facilitation pathways. The mediation analysis confirms that approximately 52-55% of total sandbox effects operate through FinTech innovation channels, while the remaining effects reflect direct regulatory improvements in administrative efficiency and market accessibility. The heterogeneity analysis reveals that small enterprises with 10-49 employees demonstrate the largest effect sizes, while technology-oriented SMEs achieve substantially superior outcomes compared to traditional sectors, suggesting that sandbox benefits are not uniformly distributed but rather concentrate among firms with optimal characteristics for leveraging regulatory innovations.
   The observed heterogeneity in sandbox effectiveness across the UK, Singapore, and Hungary corroborates recent findings on the contextual nature of FinTech’s impact on SME financing[25, 26]. Our results demonstrate that regulatory sandboxes create differentiated pathways for financial inclusion, with mature economies like the UK achieving innovation diversity advantages while emerging markets like Hungary excel in regulatory compliance integration. This finding extends Del Sarto and Ozili’s observations about FinTech and financial inclusion in emerging markets, suggesting that regulatory sandboxes serve as critical bridging mechanisms that enable developing economies to leverage global financial innovations while maintaining institutional coherence[27]. The regional variation patterns identified in our study complement Tidjani and Madouri’s analysis of sustainable development impacts, indicating that sandbox frameworks create sustainable competitive advantages through institutional capacity building rather than merely technological adoption [28].
   The transformative potential of regulatory sandboxes extends beyond immediate financing constraint alleviation to encompass fundamental restructuring of government-SME relationships in the FinTech era, as conceptualized by Abu et al. [29]. The empirical analysis demonstrates that sandbox frameworks create new forms of regulatory capital that SMEs can leverage to access not only traditional financing but also emerging digital financial services that were previously beyond their institutional reach, with empirical evidence showing digital adoption improvements ranging from 13.6 to 21.4 percentage points across jurisdictions. This regulatory capital formation process represents a novel contribution to understanding how institutional innovations complement technological developments in addressing SME financing gaps, supported by the mediation analysis indicating that innovation facilitation accounts for over half of total sandbox effects on SME financing accessibility. The systematic comparison across three distinct regulatory environments demonstrates that successful sandbox implementation requires sophisticated orchestration of technological capabilities, regulatory flexibility, and ecosystem development strategies, with the effect size analysis revealing that different jurisdictions achieve superior outcomes through varying combinations of administrative efficiency, market integration, and technological innovation facilitation mechanisms [30]. The empirical evidence of processing time reductions exceeding 20% in all jurisdictions and financing cost decreases of 47-63 basis points validates the practical significance of these institutional innovations, while the high retention rates approaching 90% across multiple indicators confirm that sandbox frameworks create sustainable pathways for SME financial inclusion through systematic regulatory learning and ecosystem development, rather than merely temporary regulatory relief mechanisms.
6. Conclusion
   This comparative research line has systematically compared mitigatory impacts by not only reviewing both the UK and the Singaporean experiences, but also examining the mitigation effects of FinTech regulatory sandboxes on SME financing constraints in depth by focusing on distinct jurisdictions (UK, Singapore, and Hungary) and it suggests regulatory sandboxes can be considered as game changing institutional innovations that differ from traditional regulatory facilitation and go beyond that to be ecosystem wide restructuration and financial intermediation facilitation. The applied evidence indicates that although regulatory sandboxes manifest quite heterogeneous patterns of design due into disparate institutional settings, regulatory maturity levels, and strategic priorities, they entail positive effects in the mitigation of SME financing constraints adopting a mix of multiple complementary channels of action, primarily through: i) innovation facilitation; ii) enhancement of regulatory learning; iii) ecosystem development; and iv) institutional capacity building. The study’s theoretical contribution is to demonstrate that regulatory sandboxes are dynamic policy tools that produce regulatory capital and new form of regulatory capital that makes previously “unbankable” SMEs bankable, and at the same time engender regulatory learning and market formation. The cross-jurisdictional scan identifies not just technical design characteristics, but rather the advanced coordination of institutional arrangements, stakeholder inclusion mechanisms, and ecosystem integration strategies that customize experimentation with regulations with wider economic and innovation priorities as the key factor for the effectiveness of sandboxes. These findings bear important implications for regulators considering how to design regulatory sandboxes to best promote FinTech innovation and financial inclusion of SMEs, suggesting that effective pressure factors underpinning successful sandbox implementation are embedded in integrated strategies that combine facilitating FS innovations with ensuring proper consumer safeguards and effective systemic risk monitoring. It provides a basis for further work on the systemic sustained effects of the regulatory sandbox on financial system evolution and novel evidence-based frameworks to enable optimal regulatory sand-boxing in varied institutional settings.
   References
7. Cornelli, G., et al., Regulatory sandboxes and fintech funding: evidence from the UK. Review of Finance, 2024. 28(1): p. 203-233.
8. Sanga, B. and M. Aziakpono, FinTech and SMEs financing: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Digital Business, 2023. 3(2): p. 100067.
9. Kálmán, J., The Role of Regulatory Sandboxes in FinTech Innovation: A Comparative Case Study of the UK, Singapore, and Hungary. FinTech, 2025. 4(2): p. 26.
10. Bains, P. and C. Wu, Institutional arrangements for Fintech regulation: supervisory monitoring. 2023: International Monetary Fund.
11. Gumbo, L. and U.A. Chude-Okonkwo, Regulatory sandbox as a frontier for innovation and sustainability: a systematic review. Cogent Business & Management, 2025. 12(1): p. 2510555.
12. Brown, E. and D. Piroska, Governing fintech and fintech as governance: The regulatory sandbox, riskwashing, and disruptive social classification. New Political Economy, 2022. 27(1): p. 19-32.
13. Bu, Y., et al., Regulatory sandbox system and its impact on financial efficiency: a quasi-natural experiment study. Applied Economics, 2025: p. 1-19.
14. Antwi, F. and Y. Kong, Investigating the impacts of digital finance technology on financial stability of the banking sector: New insights from developing market economies. Cogent Business & Management, 2023. 10(3): p. 2284738.
15. Bu, Y., et al., Digital inclusive finance: A lever for SME financing? International Review of Financial Analysis, 2024. 93: p. 103115.
16. Jun, W. and X.Q. Ran, Dynamics in digital finance and its impact on SME financing. Heliyon, 2024. 10(9).
17. Sharma, S.K., P.V. Ilavarasan, and S. Karanasios, Small businesses and FinTech: a systematic review and future directions. Electronic Commerce Research, 2024. 24(1): p. 535-575.
18. Wang, X. and X. Chen, An empirical study on financing constraints of digital inclusive finance development on small and medium-sized technology-based enterprise. Kybernetes, 2023. 52(2): p. 585-600.
19. Eldridge, D., T.M. Nisar, and M. Torchia, What impact does equity crowdfunding have on SME innovation and growth? An empirical study. Small Business Economics, 2021. 56(1): p. 105-120.
20. Sanga, B. and M. Aziakpono, FinTech developments and their heterogeneous effect on digital finance for SMEs and entrepreneurship: evidence from 47 African countries. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 2024(ahead-of-print).
21. Guo, J., et al., FinTech and financing constraints of enterprises: Evidence from China. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 2023. 82: p. 101713.
22. Gu, F., et al., The impact of digital inclusive finance on SMEs’ technological innovation activities—Empirical analysis based on the data of new third board enterprises. Plos one, 2023. 18(11): p. e0293500.
23. Berg, T., et al., On the rise of fintechs: Credit scoring using digital footprints. The Review of Financial Studies, 2020. 33(7): p. 2845-2897.
24. Buchak, G., et al., Fintech, regulatory arbitrage, and the rise of shadow banks. Journal of financial economics, 2018. 130(3): p. 453-483.
25. Fathirezaie, Z., et al. The relationship between executive functions and gross motor skills in rural children aged 8–10 years. in Healthcare. 2022. MDPI.
26. Abbasi, K., et al., P2P lending Fintechs and SMEs’ access to finance. Economics Letters, 2021. 204: p. 109890.
27. Lu, Y., S. Zhan, and M. Zhan, Has FinTech changed the sensitivity of corporate investment to interest rates?—Evidence from China. Research in International Business and Finance, 2024. 68: p. 102168.
28. Chen, J., et al., Applying blockchain technology to reshape the service models of supply chain finance for SMEs in China. The Singapore Economic Review, 2021: p. 1-18.
29. Kaur, J., et al., Barriers to blockchain adoption for supply chain finance: the case of Indian SMEs: J. Kaur et al. Electronic Commerce Research, 2024. 24(1): p. 303-340.
30. Kumar, D., et al., Filling the SME credit gap: a systematic review of blockchain-based SME finance literature. Journal of trade science, 2023. 11(2/3): p. 45-72.
31. Guo, J., et al., E-commerce supply chain finance for SMEs: the role of green innovation. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 2024. 27(9): p. 1596-1615.
32. Ha, D., P. Le, and D.K. Nguyen, Financial inclusion and fintech: a state-of-the-art systematic literature review. Financial Innovation, 2025. 11(1): p. 69.
33. Del Sarto, N. and P.K. Ozili, FinTech and financial inclusion in emerging markets: a bibliometric analysis and future research agenda. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 2025. 20(13): p. 270-290.
34. Tidjani, C. and A. Madouri, Fintech, financial inclusion, and sustainable development in the African region. Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 2024. 10: p. 1276218.
35. Abu, N., F.P. da Silva, and P.R. Vieira, Government support for SMEs in the Fintech Era: Enhancing access to finance, survival, and performance. Digital Business, 2025. 5(1): p. 100099.
36. Junnan, L., The impact of fintech on the financing constraints of SMEs. The Frontiers of Society, Science and Technology, 2024. 6(4): p. 26-31.