Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study examines the impact of Prime Ministerial leadership turnover on financial inclusion policy in the United Kingdom, with particular emphasis on access to banking credit and fintech adoption during 2021–2026. The study adopts an Interrupted Time-Series (ITS) and segmented regression approach, complemented by multiple-leadership-transition analysis, event-study estimation, and Granger causality tests. Financial inclusion is measured through access to banking credit, while fintech adoption captures the expansion of digital financial services. The ITS results indicate that both banking-credit access and fintech adoption recorded significant positive pre-transition trends. However, leadership turnover generated significant immediate negative effects on banking-credit access (β = −2.146; p < 0.05) and fintech adoption (β = −1.874; p < 0.05). The post-transition trend for banking-credit access was negative and significant (β = −0.173; p < 0.05), whereas fintech adoption recorded a positive and significant post-transition trend (β = 0.126; p < 0.05), indicating stronger recovery. The multiple-transition results show that the Sunak–Starmer transition produced the largest immediate adverse effects on both outcomes. Event-study results further reveal significant short-term declines following leadership transitions, with effects diminishing over subsequent periods. Granger causality tests establish unidirectional causality from leadership turnover to financial inclusion, fintech adoption, and Open Banking, while reverse causality is insignificant. The study concludes that Prime Ministerial turnover temporarily disrupts financial inclusion and digital-finance development, particularly access to banking credit, although fintech demonstrates greater resilience. The study recommends strengthening policy continuity, regulatory stability, and institutional transition mechanisms to sustain financial inclusion during periods of political leadership change.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ali et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: