Abstract.The role of politics is particularly difficult to discern in the domain of international financial markets, where the state's capacity to control or direct capital flows, without incurring considerable opportunity (and political) costs, appears so limited. In addressing this question, this paper argues that the process of internationalisation is first and foremost the consequence of political decision‐making (to create open markets) and that many domestic interests linked to the international market have promoted internationalisation both through their policy preferences and economic activity. The paper will then go on to argue that the threat of financial instability and crisis, a consequence of the increased volatility of relatively unregulated capital flows, has prompted political demands for more concerted inter‐state co‐operation to maintain stability. Much of this takes place through transnational agreements among state agencies, such as the central banks, and much through ‘reregulation’ in the guise of ‘harmonisation’ of regulatory and prudential supervisory policies.Some of this process has received considerable publicity, such as the harmonisation of EEC regulations to facilitate freer trade in banking and financial services as part of the preparation for the Single European Market in 1992. Likewise, the current Uruguay Round of GATT trade talks has the liberalisation of trade in financial services on its agenda. Other aspects of the process have been carried on quietly, far from public view, in such forums as the Bank for International Settlements. Such is the case of a recent agreement to harmonise minimum capital adequacy requirements for banks operating in international markets. The paper uses these three cases to support the argument about the role of politics and the state in internat