| 来源类型 | Article
|
| 规范类型 | 其他
|
| DOI | 10.1017/S1357321717000253
|
| How banks and other financial institutions think. |
| Thompson M
|
| 发表日期 | 2018
|
| 出处 | British Actuarial Journal 23: e5
|
| 出版年 | 2018
|
| 语种 | 英语
|
| 摘要 | Conventional diagnoses of the 2007/8 Global Financial Crisis see it as “abnormal”, and then resort to explanations in terms of “irrational exuberance”, “animal spirits”, “herding behaviour” and so on. The prescription – “better regulation” – then follows automatically, as it has done after every such crisis, all the way back to tulipmania 400 years ago. But if there are different “seasons of risk”, and if financial sector actors are able to latch onto different risk-handling strategies, each appropriate to one of those seasons and inappropriate to the others, then we have a very different explanation: one in which, in contrast to both neoclassical and behavioural economics, rationality is no longer singular. This “anthropological” hypothesis has its roots in Mary Douglas’s book “How Institutions Think”, and the paper shows how it is well supported by historical evidence, agent-based modelling, and fieldwork among both financial sector firms and their regulators, as well as by parallels from ecology, organisation theory and evolutionary (i.e. Schumpeterian) economics. |
| 主题 | Risk &
; Resilience (RISK)
; Risk, Policy and Vulnerability (RPV)
|
| 关键词 | Risk management, Model risk, ERM, Investment, Plural rationality
|
| URL | http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/15083/
|
| 来源智库 | International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (Austria)
|
| 引用统计 |
|
| 资源类型 | 智库出版物
|
| 条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/131294
|
推荐引用方式
GB/T 7714 |
Thompson M. How banks and other financial institutions think.. 2018.
|
|
文件名：
|
how_banks_and_other_financial_institutions_think.pdf
|
|
格式：
|
Adobe PDF
|
此文件暂不支持浏览
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。
