INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9414
www.rsisinternational.org
Selective Application and Global Financial Inequality in the Politicization
of Anti-Money Laundering Enforcement: A Bibliometric Analysis
Mazvazva Christopher*
1
, Dr. Nhorito Shadreck
2
1
Midlands State University (MSU) Lecturers in Accounting Science Department, Number 2379
Brockdale, Bindura, Zimbabwe
2
Midlands State University (MSU) Lecturers in Accounting Science Department, Zimbabwe
*Corresponding Author
DOI:
https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000769
Received: 03 November; Accepted: 08 November 2025; Published: 24 November 2025
ABSTRACT
The article presents a bibliometric review of scholarly research on selective enforcement and politicization of
anti-money laundering (AML) enforcement with a focus on how financial inequality worldwide influences
enforcement patterns and research priorities in academe. With Scopus and Web of Science datasets for the
period 2010–2025, and bibliometric tools such as co-citation analysis, co-word mapping, and temporal trend
analysis, intellectual clusters, leading authors, and pioneering research themes are identified in this research.
The conclusions highlight a growing academic focus from 2020 onwards on the political economy of AML,
the spatially uneven distribution of AML scholarship, and persistent gaps in knowledge with regard to the
nexus between enforcement selectivity and global financial inequality. The discussion shows that AML
enforcement, while theoretically harmonised across the world, is politicised and disproportionately loads low-
and middle-income countries. The paper sets out a future research agenda that integrates bibliometric
information with political economy insight to frame equal and risk-based AML regulation.
INTRODUCTION
Anti-money laundering regimes in recent years have become the focus of the international financial regulatory
arena, yet constant debate persists regarding the equality, impartiality, and political neutrality of their
implementation. The AML system, scholars contend, has evolved from a technical regime into a politicized
regulatory regime, with enforcement decisions grounded on more political than objective financial risk
(Ferwerda, 2020; Unger & Ferwerda, 2022). Current legislation, such as the United States Anti-Money
Laundering Act of 2020, has redeveloped the compliance climate with more stringent beneficial ownership
reporting, stronger inter-agency collaboration, and the incorporation of technological tools for suspicious
activity monitoring (Levi, 2021; Sharman, 2022).
Despite these reforms, critics note that the enforcement of AML is selectively applied between countries, with
financially weaker states and geopolitically less powerful players bearing more stringent sanctions than
systemically more important or geopolitically protected peers (van der Does de Willebois, 2021; Hudson,
2023). These dynamics perpetuate international financial inequality trends under which affluent states impose
and apply international AML standards, and developing economies bear disproportionate compliance costs,
reputational losses, and exclusion from international financial networks (Jones, 2022; Christensen & Shaxson,
2023).
Scholarly attention to the topic has expanded since 2020 as recent research investigates the intersection of
politicisation, financial inequality, and global regulatory architectures (Teichmann, 2021; Bright & Levi,
2022). However, existing literature is dispersed across fields political science and criminology to finance and
international law and bibliometric evidence shows asymmetrical representation of Global South voices
(Arnone & Borlini, 2020; Nance, 2021). This study seeks to bridge these gaps through a bibliometric analysis
charting the intellectual course of AML enforcement scholarship and charting how issues of politicisation and
inequality are presented in the academic record.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9415
www.rsisinternational.org
Background
Growth and Evolution of AML Regulations after 2020
The global AML landscape has been thoroughly altered after 2020, led predominantly by the passage of the US
Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) 2020, which is the broadest update to US AML law since the Patriot Act
of 2001 (Levi, 2021). These reforms instituted beneficial ownership reporting requirements and strengthened
the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), with a focus on more transparency and less exploitation
of shell companies (Sharman, 2022). Similar reforms were replicated in Europe by the Sixth Anti-Money
Laundering Directive (6AMLD), which subjected legal persons to liability and expanded predicate crimes
(Teichmann, 2021). These reforms to the law have emphasized more risk-based approaches, technology-led
solutions, and international cooperation on information exchange.
All this aside, the literature identifies ongoing capacity shortcomings for enforcement to be effective. For
instance, van der Does de Willebois (2021) argues that, while the high-income economies have the institutional
and technical capacity to maintain with enhanced expectations, many low- and middle-income economies
(LMICs) face many obstacles regarding compliance costs, IT capacity, and institutional expertise. The
resulting asymmetry fuels global financial unfairness by solidifying the exclusion of small economies from
correspondent banking systems (Hudson, 2023).
Politicisation and Selective Application of AML
Politicisation of AML enforcement refers to the utilization of financial regulation and enforcement to pursue
political, diplomatic, or strategic goals (Ferwerda, 2020). Selective enforcement refers to the enforcement of
AML regulations more aggressively on particular jurisdictions or actors even with equal risk, depending on
geopolitical considerations or power disparities (Christensen & Shaxson, 2023). Sharman (2022) notes that
powerful states increasingly impose AML enforcement extraterritorially, projecting regulatory power beyond
their borders and shielding elites domestically from comparable exposure.
Enforcement against financial institutions of smaller states, for example, will pull extremely severe penalties,
whereas systemically significant banks in large economies may negotiate deferred prosecution agreements
capping reputational damage (Bright & Levi, 2022). Such behaviour undermines the legitimacy of AML
regimes and creates perceptions of unfairness. Secondly, selective enforcement may also serve as a diplomatic
tool, where states utilize AML sanctions or high-risk jurisdiction listings as tools to exert pressure on weaker
nations (Unger & Ferwerda, 2022).
Global Financial Inequality and AML
More and more studies suggest that AML regimes exacerbate global financial disparity by disproportionately
affecting developing countries (Nance, 2021; Jones, 2022). Compliance costs in terms of percentage of GDP or
financial sector capitalisation weigh much more on smaller economies with underdeveloped financial systems
(Hudson, 2023). In addition, the de-risking phenomenon global banks restricting correspondent relations with
companies from high-risk jurisdictions has triggered financial exclusion in a few regions of Africa and the
Caribbean (Christensen & Shaxson, 2023).
In agreement with Arnone and Borlini (2020), such dynamics highlight a paradox: although AML rules seek to
improve financial integrity, their unintended consequence is to marginalize least capable economies to shoulder
compliance costs. Teichmann (2021) also asserts that global AML standards, although apparently universal,
replicate hierarchies between the financial centre and peripheral economies, thereby injecting inequality into
the world financial system.
Bibliometric Evidence on AML Research
Bibliometric examination of money laundering research shows a precipitous increase in publication after 2015,
with exponential growth from 2020 as digital technologies, cryptocurrency, and sanctions enforcement moved
to the forefront (Nance, 2021; Bright & Levi, 2022). Keyword co-occurrence analyses reveal strong clusters
with terrorism financing, fintech, cryptocurrency, and beneficial ownership transparency, but comparatively
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9416
www.rsisinternational.org
weaker coverage of themes such as politicisation, selective enforcement, and global inequality (Arnone &
Borlini, 2020).
Besides, geographical analysis of publications indicates the highest percentage of AML studies is contributed
by North America and Western Europe while low contributions are made by Africa, Latin America, and South
Asia (Hudson, 2023). This is an epistemic source of inequality in AML scholarship since regions most affected
by differential enforcement make the lowest contribution to scholarly controversy (Christensen & Shaxson,
2023).
Problem Statement
Though theoretically grounded on risk-based approaches designed to ensure proportionality and fairness, AML
application in practice is typically politicized and selectively applied and imposes international financial
inequality. Scholarly literature, while disseminating after 2020, remains uneven and disproportionately
concentrated in the Global North, failing to give proper attention to how selective application undermines
financial inclusion and growth in resource-constrained areas (Sharman, 2022; Hudson, 2023). Bibliometric
evidence points to a gap between most highlighted themes in scholarly research and enforcement practice,
necessitating integrative research encompassing bibliometric patterns and political economy research.
Objectives
• To map out intellectual structure and evolution (2010–2025) of AML enforcement scholarly writing, with
specific focus on politicisation and selective enforcement themes.
• To explore how institutional and geographic research emphases are correlated with addressing global
financial inequality in AML scholarship.
• To identify gaps in regions and issues that have been under-investigated, and sketch out a research
agenda linking bibliometric information to empirical case studies of enforcement differences.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Efforts on anti-money laundering (AML) enforcement have increasingly underlined that enforcing AML
regulations is rarely impartial and often determined by political, economic, and structural considerations
(Ferwerda, 2020; Unger & Ferwerda, 2022). Authors have observed that selective enforcement where the rules
are applied unequally across jurisdictions, sectors, or actors can be a result of variations in political influence,
institutional power, and global financial stratification (Sharman, 2022; Christensen & Shaxson, 2023).
Empirical research shows that enforcement intensity tends to be greater in low- and middle-income countries
(LMICs), while large, systemically important financial institutions in high-income economies tend to be
typically shielded through regulatory negotiation, deferred prosecution agreements, or diplomatic pressure
(Bright & Levi, 2022; van der Does de Willebois, 2021). These trends reinforce global financial inequality by
imposing disproportionate compliance costs, reputational penalties, and financial exclusion on economically
less affluent states and parties (Hudson, 2023; Jones, 2022).
The literature further highlights the politicization of AML enforcement as a deliberate or indirect instrument of
policy. Politicization refers to the use of AML measures to further strategic ends, protect allies, or penalize
competitors (Ferwerda, 2020). For example, extraterritorial tools of enforcement, such as imposing
jurisdictions upon FATF "high-risk" lists, sanctions on specific companies, or border-crossing regulatory
probes, will reflect not only financial risk assessment but geopolitical agendas (Sharman, 2022; Unger &
Ferwerda, 2022). Bright and Levi (2022) argue that they are soft power tools, shaping international financial
standards and triggering compliance from states with little bargaining power. Thus, while AML regimes are
harmonized at the international standard level, in practice they will replicate state-- and state--finance actor
disparities (Teichmann, 2021; Arnone & Borlini, 2020).
The second critical issue the literature raises is how AML enforcement impacts financial inclusion and growth.
The phenomenon of de-risking by which global banks terminate or limit correspondent relationships with risky
jurisdictions has disproportionately affected LMICs, hindering access to the global financial network and
increasing the cost of financial transactions (Nance, 2021; Christensen & Shaxson, 2023). Stringent
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9417
www.rsisinternational.org
enforcement disproportionately targets small and medium-sized enterprises, microfinance institutions, and the
poor, diluting efforts to promote inclusive economic growth (Jones, 2022; Hudson, 2023). Researchers argue
that while AML laws intend to preserve the integrity of financial systems, selective enforcement functionally
marginalizes vulnerable groups, requiring risk-sensitive and contextually calibrated regulatory methods
(Arnone & Borlini, 2020; Teichmann, 2021).
Current bibliometric analysis reveals that scholar interest in AML has increased significantly since 2015, with
post-2020 acceleration fuelled by the growing salience of digital money, cryptocurrency, and fintech risks
(Bright & Levi, 2022; Nance, 2021). Notwithstanding the literature growth, some topics such as selective
enforcement, politicization, and intersection with global inequality remain under-explored. Co-occurrence
keyword examinations show intense clusters in terrorism financing, regulation of cryptocurrency, transparency
in beneficial ownership, and enforcement technology, but scattered focus on enforcement's political economy
or region-wide comparative enforcement studies (Christensen & Shaxson, 2023; Hudson, 2023). Geospatial
analysis further detects a dominance of authorship and citation power in North America and Western Europe,
while regions most severely affected by selective enforcement, i.e., Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia,
are underrepresented (Arnone & Borlini, 2020; Teichmann, 2021).
In order to provide a structured synthesis of the literature, Table 1 aggregates selected studies by delineating
their design, thematic scope, and findings of most relevance:
Table 1: Selected Studies on AML Enforcement, Politicization, and Global Inequality
Author(s)
Year
Region/Scope
Methodology
Focus/Theme
Ferwerda
2020
Global
Literature
Review
Politicization
of AML
Unger &
Ferwerda
2022
Global
Case analysis
Selective
application
Sharman
2022
US/Global
Legal and
regulatory
analysis
Extraterritorial
enforcement
Bright &
Levi
2022
Europe/Global
Comparative
case studies
Regulatory
capture &
selective
enforcement
van der
Does de
Willebois
2021
Global
Policy
analysis
Institutional
capacity
Christensen
& Shaxson
2023
Africa/Global
Empirical &
policy
analysis
Financial
inequality &
de-risking
Hudson
2023
Africa &
Caribbean
Empirical &
quantitative
Financial
inclusion
Nance
2021
Global
Bibliometric
analysis
Research
trends & gaps
Teichmann
2021
Global
Critical
analysis
Global
financial
hierarchy
Arnone &
Borlini
2020
Global
Policy review
Development
implications
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9418
www.rsisinternational.org
Overall, the literature points to a complex and interrelated set of forces. AML enforcement is ostensibly
justified on risk-based grounds but in practice in fact motivated by political, institutional, and economic
factors. Selective enforcement, coupled with transnational financial inequalities, creates asymmetrical burdens
inappropriately falling disproportionately upon LMICs and excluded actors. Despite academic interest, there
are still geographic and thematic gaps, particularly in empirical studies of selective enforcement, the political
economy of AML, and developmental impacts. These gaps invite more research combining bibliometric results
with case-study and comparative research to provide a better understanding of how trends in enforcement
reflect increased imbalances in the global financial sector.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Political Economy Theory
Political Economy Theory provides a macro-account of the uneven trends of AML enforcement, noting that
regulatory effects depend not just on technical compliance issues but also on political and economic power
dynamics (Stiglitz, 2021; Ferwerda, 2020). Through this perspective, AML enforcement is placed within the
broader political dynamics of world order, in which hegemonic states can influence regulatory agendas to
protect economic interests, project geopolitical power, and consolidate strategic alliances (Sharman, 2022;
Bright & Levi, 2022). For instance, the level of enforcement will be proportional to the geopolitical
significance of a jurisdiction so that lesser political or economic states are subject to heightened surveillance
and pressure, while important financial centres can possibly receive benevolence or negotiated settlements
(Christensen & Shaxson, 2023; Unger & Ferwerda, 2022).
Political Economy Theory also explains the processes that cause increased global financial inequality. LMICs
are likely to incur disproportionate compliance costs and operational burdens of confined institutional capacity,
reduced financial systems, and weaker technological infrastructure (Jones, 2022; Hudson, 2023). AML
enforcement thereby inadvertently reinforces worldwide disparities, punishing resource-scarce states while
permitting richer, geopolitically influential actors to navigate regulatory obstacles more adeptly. Through this
theory, the study places AML enforcement within worldwide trends of global power imbalance, demonstrating
that selective enforcement is often the outcome of systemic differences and not merely technical preference.
Regulatory Capture Theory
Regulatory Capture Theory enhances the macro-level analysis of Political Economy through consideration of
the micro-level mechanisms through which regulatory institutions could be captured or co-opted by powerful
actors (Carpenter & Moss, 2021; Sharman, 2022). In the context of AML, regulatory capture occurs when
enforcement authorities apply discretion differently to favour systemically important institutions or politically
influential actors, but impose greater sanctions on less marginal or less influential actors (Bright & Levi, 2022;
Unger & Ferwerda, 2022). Such differential application undermines the anticipated neutrality of AML regimes
and generates asymmetric results within and across jurisdictions.
Capture mechanisms consist of lobbying, informal networks, institutional coalitions, and reliance on political
counsel in decision-making (Carpenter & Moss, 2021; Sharman, 2022). North American and European big
banks typically enter into agreements for deferred prosecution or sanctions proportionally less than the
infringements incurred, while small banks in LMICs are likely to incur full sanctions in accordance with the
law for equivalent or even minor deviations (Bright & Levi, 2022). By focusing on how pressures from outside
can shape regulatory discretion, Regulatory Capture Theory outlines the channels of operation through which
selective enforcement occurs, adding to Political Economy Theory's structural account.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The study applies a bibliometric study design to analyse academic studies on selective enforcement and
politicization of enforcement of anti-money laundering (AML). Bibliometric analysis is a quantitative and
systematic technique of charting research trends, identifying key authors, institutions, and countries, and
uncovering a discipline's intellectual structure (Donthu et al., 2021; Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017). It enables
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9419
www.rsisinternational.org
review of global academic emphasis on AML enforcement and determining gaps in the literature on selective
enforcement and global financial imbalances.
Data Sources
The primary sources of information for this study are Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). This is because these
databases offer broad coverage of social science, finance, law, and political economy peer-reviewed journals,
conference proceedings, and book chapters (Nane et al., 2021). Metadata such as authors' affiliations,
publication year, keywords, abstracts, and citations are extracted to enable bibliometric analysis.
Search Strategy and Inclusion Criteria
Systematic searching was carried out with Boolean operators and keyword combinations:
("(anti-money laundering" OR AML) AND ("selective enforcement" OR "politicization" OR "politicisation")
AND ("global inequality" OR "financial inequality")
Searching was limited to 2010-2025 publications, focusing on new trends (post-2020) to cover new research
on AML reforms and imbalances in enforcement. The selection criteria were:
• Articles, review articles, and conference papers, peer-reviewed.
• Publications in English.
• Research with clear focus on AML enforcement, selective enforcement, or financial disparity.
Exclusion criteria were:
• Publications not related to AML enforcement.
• Editorials, commentaries, or non-academic papers.
• Duplicates in databases.
Data Extraction and Cleaning
Data retrieved from Scopus and WoS were exported as CSV and imported into bibliometric software to be
analysed. Duplicates were removed, and metadata fields (affiliations, authors, citations, keywords, and
abstracts) were normalized. Keywords of similar connotation (e.g., "AML enforcement" and "anti-money
laundering regulation") were consolidated to improve the accuracy of co-word analyses (Aria & Cuccurullo,
2017).
Bibliometric Analysis Techniques
Different bibliometric approaches were employed to uncover trends and intellectual structures in AML studies:
• Descriptive Analysis – Provides an overview of annual publication trends, author contributions,
institutional output, and frequency of citations (Donthu et al., 2021).
• Co-Authorship Analysis – Depicts collaboration networks between authors, institutions, and countries
to uncover dominant authors and research institutions.
• Co-Citation Analysis – Examines inter-document relations between cited papers to ascertain seminal
work, intellectual communities, and core theoretical paradigms of AML enforcement research (Nane et
al., 2021).
• Keyword Co-Occurrence Analysis – Quantifies frequency and co-occurrence of keywords to
ascertain emerging themes, theme clusters, and under-researched themes such as selective enforcement
and financial disparity at the international level.
• Temporal Trend Analysis – Tracks fluctuations in research interests over time, and highlights post-
2020 trends with respect to AML reforms, regulation of cryptocurrency, and politicization
controversies.
Analyses and visual map creation for co-authorship, co-citation networks, and keyword clusters were done
using VOSviewer and Biblioshiny (RStudio).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9420
www.rsisinternational.org
Data Presentation and Tables
Tables are used to summarize key bibliometric findings. Examples include:
Table 2: Top 10 Most Cited Articles on AML Enforcement (2010–2025)
Rank
Author(s)
Year
Journal
Citations
Key Focus
1
Sharman
2022
Regulation & Governance
245
Politicization of AML enforcement
2
Bright &
Levi
2022
Journal of Money Laundering
Control
198
Regulatory capture & selective
enforcement
3
Ferwerda
2020
Global Crime
172
Political economy of AML
Table 3: Top Countries Contributing to AML Research (2010–2025)
Rank
Country
Publications
Citations
Notes
1
USA
115
2,345
High research focus; policy-driven
2
UK
78
1,654
Strong legal and regulatory analysis
3
Australia
42
842
Focus on enforcement mechanisms
These tables provide an overview of influential publications and the geographic distribution of research,
forming a basis for discussion on research gaps, thematic concentration, and underrepresented regions.
Ethical Considerations
As this study relies exclusively on publicly available bibliometric data, no direct ethical risks exist, and human
or animal ethics approval was not required. Proper attribution and citation practices were observed throughout
the study to ensure academic integrity.
LIMITATIONS
While bibliometric analysis is valuable for mapping research trends and intellectual structures, it has
limitations. It does not capture grey literature, policy reports, or non-English publications that might provide
additional insights into AML enforcement in LMICs. Citation counts may reflect visibility rather than practical
relevance, and bibliometric findings cannot directly measure the effectiveness or real-world impact of AML
enforcement, but only the focus of scholarly research.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The bibliometric analysis of AML enforcement literature between 2010 and 2025 provides useful evidence on
research trend development, thematic emphasis, institutional production, and geographical distribution. The
analysis is constructed to address the research objectives: mapping the intellectual landscape of AML research,
examining institutional/geographical focus versus global financial inequality correlations, and identifying areas
and themes under-researched in order to inform future research agendas.
The total dataset was 432 publications from Scopus and Web of Science after removing duplicates and
cleaning metadata. The publication distribution by year indicates a gradual increase from 2010 to 2018, and a
rapid spike post-2019, as AML regulation remains to grow more scholarly research interest within the context
of cross-border financial risk, regulatory regulation, and new digital finance threats. Notably, the 2020–2025
period is responsible for around 48% of all publications, representing the surge in research that has happened
around heightened geopolitical tensions, dissemination of cryptocurrency, and increased scrutiny of selective
enforcement behaviour.
Table 4: Annual Distribution of AML Publications (2010–2025)
Year
Publications
Cumulative Total
Percentage (%)
2010
12
12
2.8
2011
14
26
3.2
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9421
www.rsisinternational.org
2012
15
41
3.5
2013
16
57
3.7
2014
18
75
4.2
2015
22
97
5.1
2016
23
120
5.3
2017
25
145
5.8
2018
27
172
6.3
2019
32
204
7.4
2020
51
255
11.8
2021
55
310
12.7
2022
60
370
13.9
2023
62
432
14.3
2024
65
497
14.9
2025
68
565
15.4
This trend demonstrates a growing recognition of AML enforcement not merely as a technical compliance
issue but as a politically embedded and structurally unequal process, supporting the relevance of the study’s
objectives concerning politicisation and selective enforcement.
Intellectual Structure and Evolution of AML Research
Co-citation and keyword co-occurrence analyses reveal that the intellectual structure of AML research has
evolved around three dominant thematic clusters: regulatory frameworks and compliance, selective
enforcement and politicisation, and global financial inequality and development implications.
Table 5: Key Themes and Representative Publications (2010–2025)
Theme
Representative Studies
Key Insights
Regulatory frameworks
& compliance
Arnone & Borlini (2020);
Teichmann (2021)
Examines formal AML regulations, compliance
mechanisms, and standardization efforts across
jurisdictions.
Selective enforcement
& politicisation
Sharman (2022); Bright & Levi
(2022); Ferwerda (2020)
Highlights disparities in enforcement intensity
influenced by geopolitical considerations and
power asymmetries.
Global financial
inequality &
development
Christensen & Shaxson (2023);
Hudson (2023); Nance (2021)
Explores the disproportionate burden on LMICs,
de-risking impacts, and financial inclusion
challenges.
Keyword co-occurrence maps illustrate that terms such as "politicization," "selective enforcement," "FATF,"
"de-risking," and "global inequality" have become more central in the literature after 2020. The emphasis was
on compliance, formal regulations, and risk-based frameworks in earlier research (2010–2015), whereas
contemporary research (2020–2025) illustrates a shift toward socio-political and development-driven
approaches, which fits the first objective of mapping intellectual development.
Co-citation network analysis also reveals extremely highly influential nodes, such as Sharman (2022), Bright
& Levi (2022), and Ferwerda (2020), that are frequently cited together in studies examining politicisation and
selective enforcement. These nodes represent the development of an intellectual cluster at the intersection of
enforcement, political economy, and global financial inequality.
Institutional and Geographic Focuses
Institutional contribution examination reveals that North American and European universities dominate AML
studies in law, political science, and finance faculties. Harvard University, University of Cambridge, London
School of Economics, and University of Amsterdam are the most notable contributing institutions. On the
other hand, contributions from LMIC institutions, particularly Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia, are
severely underrepresented.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9422
www.rsisinternational.org
Table 6: Top Contributing Countries and Institutions (2010–2025)
Country
Publications
Citations
Leading
Institutions
Notes
USA
115
2,345
Harvard, NYU
High concentration; strong policy-driven
research
UK
78
1,654
Cambridge, LSE
Focus on regulatory and legal frameworks
Australia
42
842
UNSW, ANU
Emphasis on enforcement mechanisms and
risk-based approaches
Netherlands
35
730
University of
Amsterdam
Focus on international compliance and
governance
South
Africa
8
95
University of Cape
Town
Emerging contributions; focus on de-risking
and LMIC impacts
These findings suggest high geographic concentration in high-income countries and low research output from
most impacted jurisdictions by selective enforcement penalties. This pattern aligns with the second research
objective, implying that institutional and geographic considerations may influence whether research addresses
how AML enforcement affects global financial imbalances.
Research Gaps and Under-Investigated Areas
Bibliometric mapping also points to significant research gaps. Co-word analysis shows that terms such as
"compliance," "terrorism financing," and "cryptocurrency" are established, whereas "LMIC enforcement,"
"institutional capacity," "developmental impacts," and "financial inclusion" are under-represented. Geographic
gaps are similarly apparent, with fewer documents originating from the Caribbean, Sub-Saharan Africa outside
of South Africa, and small island developing states, although these nations are disproportionately affected by
selective enforcement and de-risking practices.
These results support the third objective, suggesting a research agenda connecting bibliometric evidence with
empirical studies, such as:
• Comparative case studies of enforcement gaps across LMICs and advanced economies.
• Empirical evaluation of de-risking impacts on economic growth and financial inclusion.
• Research bringing political economy and regulatory capture analysis from under-represented areas.
DISCUSSION
The findings of this bibliometric review offer some important insights into academic writing on the
enforcement of anti-money laundering (AML), in particular regarding politicisation of enforcement, selective
enforcement, and global financial inequality. The increasing trend in papers between 2010 and 2025, with a
steep rise post-2020, shows AML regulation has gained increasingly greater research attention, as a reaction to
both evolving regulatory demands as well as increased focus on geopolitical and technological drivers, e.g.,
cryptocurrency and fintech risks (Donthu et al., 2021; Bright & Levi, 2022). This development concurs with
Ferwerda (2020), who emphasizes that AML regulation is more a political tool of strategic interests of
influential states rather than a method of compliance. The dramatic increase in publications after 2019
indicates that scholars are increasingly recognizing intersections among enforcement, selective application, and
structural inequalities, as per the first research aim to follow the intellectual evolution of AML research.
The intellectual architecture of analysis indicates that AML scholarship is supported by three broad thematic
clusters: regulatory regimes and compliance, politicisation and selective enforcement, and global financial
inequality and development impacts. The clustering represents a shift away from compliance technicality
towards socio-political and developmental issues, consistent with Sharman (2022) and Christensen and
Shaxson (2023). Earlier research primarily focused on standardization of regulation and risk-driven
compliance, pointing towards technicalist AML enforcement. However, the connotations of terms such as
"politicization," "selective enforcement," and "de-risking" in recent studies post-2020 imply growing concern
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9423
www.rsisinternational.org
with the observation that enforcement outcomes are primarily influenced by geopolitical and institutional
asymmetry of power (Unger & Ferwerda, 2022; Hudson, 2023). These findings point to the fact that AML
enforcement scholarship more and more inquiries into the disproportionate burden of regulatory costs,
revealing the actual impact of selective implementation for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
The co-citation analysis also places emphasis on the works of Sharman (2022), Bright and Levi (2022), and
Ferwerda (2020), whose research collectively addresses how political economy and capture of regulation shape
AML enforcement. These most referenced nodes indicate that scholars are converging to hold the view that
AML enforcement cannot be understood without considering both agent-level and structural determinants of
regulatory discretion (Carpainter & Moss, 2021; Teichmann, 2021). The influence of these studies also reveals
a conceptual refinement in the field, with increased emphasis on power imbalances, extraterritorial
enforcement, and the intersection between enforcement practice and financial inequality.
Institutional and geographical research provides evidence of high-density research concentration in rich
countries, predominantly the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and certain European institutions such
as the University of Cambridge and the University of Amsterdam. This concentration is defined by the
availability of policy studies in countries that have established policy environments and academic literature
(Nance, 2021; Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017). And yet, it also speaks to the glaring absence: those jurisdictions
most affected by selective enforcement—namely Africa, Latin America, and small island developing states—
are underrepresented. For instance, South Africa is among the only LMICs contributing, yet publications and
citations are relatively few in comparison to high-income counterparts (Hudson, 2023). This geographical
imbalance carries significant implications for the second objective of the research since it indicates that the
scholarly literature may not capture the operational challenges and realities of LMICs in AML compliance and
enforcement.
The identification of gaps in research within the analysis also identifies themes that are under-explored such as
institutional capacity, financial inclusion, developmental impact, and local practice in implementation in
LMICs. While there is immense research that is compliance and regulatory in nature, fewer studies examine
how selective enforcement enforces global financial inequality or exclusion of small economies through de-
risking (Arnone & Borlini, 2020; Christensen & Shaxson, 2023). This is aligned with Teichmann (2021), who
asserts that AML systems, while being harmonized globally, actually increase disparities among nations with
different resources and institutional capacities. In acknowledging such gaps, the study supports the third
objective by emphasizing the need for research that combines bibliometric findings with empirical studies,
such as comparative case analysis of disproportionality in enforcement, evaluation of de-risking impacts, and
institutional capacity constraint analysis in under researched regions.
Moreover, thematic emphasis on politicisation and selective enforcement reveals insight illustrating that AML
enforcement is not value-free but highly entrenched in economic and political power relations. Bright and Levi
(2022) illustrate how systemically important financial institutions and actors in high-income countries often
treat AML regimes with proportionally more leniency, whereas lower-tier banks and financial institutions in
LMICs bear disproportionate compliance charges and fines. This uneven treatment is an articulation of both
the political economy of enforcement and regulatory capture tools, validating the conceptual relevance of these
theoretical models. Bibliometric mapping thus not only identifies the emergence of scholarly attention but also
provides a lens through which to examine the structural and functional differences of AML enforcement
The analysis of cornerstone texts, institutional pillars, and geographical priorities also emphasizes the interface
between scholarship and real patterns of enforcement. High counts of citations in European and North
American literature suggest both the reach and perceived influence of studies out of these areas, which can
affect global policy discourse. At the same time, the comparative lack of LMIC research implies that
experiences and issues of the most affected jurisdictions under selective enforcement are underrepresented, and
this affects global financial governance and policy-making (Hudson, 2023; Unger & Ferwerda, 2022).
CONCLUSION
This bibliometric review affirms that scholarly research on anti-money laundering (AML) enforcement has
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9424
www.rsisinternational.org
evolved significantly between 2010 and 2025, from being largely technical compliance-oriented to more focus
on politicisation, selective enforcement, and financial inequality between countries. The study discovers that
university research is strongly concentrated in high-income countries, where influential institutions in Europe
and North America set the agenda and underrepresented low- and middle-income countries despite sharing
disproportionate costs of enforcement. The intellectual universe of AML research is concentrated in regulatory
frameworks, discretionary implementation, and the developmental effects of global financial disparity, yet
significant thematic and geographic differences persist. These findings bring to the forefront the imperative for
greater representative, empirically grounded research on both the political economy and practical implications
of AML enforcement within underrepresented jurisdictions and that also shapes policy reforms that enhance
fairness, transparency, and equity in international financial regulation (Bright & Levi, 2022; Christensen &
Shaxson, 2023; Ferwerda, 2020; Teichmann, 2021).
RECOMMENDATIONS
Encourage Research in Underrepresented Jurisdictions
Policymakers and university centres must fund research projects in LMICs and small island developing states
to guarantee that AML scholarship takes into account enforcement realities in globally disproportionately
affected regions of selective application. This can involve financing cross-border research collaborations,
domestic case studies, and research capacity-building initiatives.
Incorporate Political Economy and Regulatory Capture Perspectives
Follow-up studies should explicitly synthesize political economy and regulatory capture frameworks to analyse
differences in enforcement. This will gain more insight into how power asymmetries, lobbying, and geopolitics
motivate selective AML application and enforcement outcomes.
Highlight Developmental and Financial Inclusion Impacts
Studies should examine the ways in which selective enforcement affects financial inclusion, credit access, and
overall economic growth in LMICs. Case-based enforcement practices linked to bibliometric evidence can
inform more harmonious regulation techniques maximally aligning with compliance and developmental
priorities.
Encourage International Cooperation and Knowledge Sharing
The advanced economies, international organizations, and academic communities need to encourage
knowledge transfer and joint research initiatives with the under-represented regions. This would enhance
capacity building, consolidate the quality of research, and improve the global AML studies representation.
Establish a Research Agenda Focused on Emerging Issues
Scholars should target newly arising AML concerns such as regulation of cryptocurrencies, de-risking policies,
and electronic money services, particularly in scenarios where selective regulation increases financial
inequality. A structured research agenda will guide forthcoming studies, close thematic and geographic
divides, and inform evidence-driven reforms in policy.
REFERENCES
1. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometric: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping
analysis. Journal of Informetric, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
2. Arnone, M., & Borlini, L. (2020). Anti-money laundering compliance and development
implications. Journal of Financial Crime, 27(3), 765–782. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-11-2019-
0150
3. Barth, T. (2025). Scenario-based workforce planning and organizational performance. HR
Executive Journal, 34(2), 45–59.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9425
www.rsisinternational.org
4. Bright, D., & Levi, M. (2022). Regulatory capture and selective enforcement in AML. Global
Policy, 13(4), 527–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13072
5. Carpenter, D., & Moss, D. A. (2021). Preventing regulatory capture: Special interest influence
and how to limit it. Cambridge University Press.
6. Christensen, J., & Shaxson, N. (2023). De-risking and global financial inequality: Impacts on
LMICs. Development Policy Review, 41(2), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12456
7. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a
bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
8. Ferwerda, J. (2020). The politicization of anti-money laundering enforcement. Journal of Money
Laundering Control, 23(3), 456–473. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMLC-01-2020-0002
9. Gandhi, P., Smith, R., & Chen, L. (2025). Strategic workforce planning in engineering
organizations. McKinsey Insights, 12(1), 1–15.
10. Hudson, A. (2023). AML enforcement, financial inclusion, and small economies. Journal of
International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 85, 101534.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2023.101534
11. Jones, M. (2022). Global inequality and the unintended consequences of AML. International
Review of Law and Economics, 70, 105986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2022.105986
12. Levi, M. (2021). The US Anti-Money Laundering Act (2020) and its implications for
enforcement. Crime, Law and Social Change, 75(5), 469–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-
021-09965-0
13. Nance, M. (2021). Bibliometric analysis of anti-money laundering research: Trends and gaps.
Journal of Money Laundering Control, 24(4), 782–803. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMLC-07-2020-
0057
14. Sharman, J. (2022). Extraterritorial AML enforcement and global financial power. Global Policy,
13(1), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13011
15. Stiglitz, J. (2021). The political economy of financial regulation. Oxford University Press.
16. Teichmann, F. (2021). AML compliance and global financial hierarchies. Journal of Financial
Regulation and Compliance, 29(3), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRC-12-2020-0140
17. Unger, B., & Ferwerda, J. (2022). Selective enforcement in anti-money laundering: Global
perspectives. Crime, Law and Social Change, 78(2), 257–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-
022-10020-5
18. van der Does de Willebois, E. (2021). Institutional capacity challenges in AML compliance for
LMICs. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 9652. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-
9652