Risks and Risk Regulation: Personal Reflections

Francis Snyder

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2016.2

2017-01-01

European Journal of Risk Regulation

Abstract:An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

An institutional perspective on governance, power, and politics of financial risk

W. Travis Selmier

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2017.8

IF: 2.457

2017-06-01

Business and Politics

Abstract:Abstract Avoidance of risk and increasing returns are the two main motivators in finance. Returns are better understood and perhaps more easily regulated than financial risk, which is a complex and slippery concept. Financial risk may be best conceived of as a complementary good, but the nature of this good varies as the size of the investment position scales up. That is, the effects of financial risk may be conceived of as a private good for a small financial actor, but becomes a club good, then a common pool, and occasionally a public good as the impact of the investment position's financial risk spreads to affect more of society. Examining banking history shows us that banks and bankers have offset risk while retaining returns through structuring financial products and investment vehicles as club goods, thereby enabling financial actors to jointly benefit from ownership while harming those outside the club walls. Not surprisingly, this capacity to push risk outside club walls has grown commensurate with the political influence of banks and bankers. Laying out governance strategies and concepts, I suggest that in some circumstances pervasive club good structures in finance may be employed to gather regulation-enhancing information, to better understand the networked nature of financial risk and to craft self-governance structures.
Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research

Michael Siegrist,Joseph Árvai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13599

2020-09-18

Risk Analysis

Abstract:<p>Numerous studies and practical experiences with risk have demonstrated the importance of risk perceptions for people's behavior. In this narrative review, we describe and reflect upon some of the lines of research that we feel have been important in helping us understand the factors and processes that shape people's risk perceptions. In our review, we propose that much of the research on risk perceptions to date can be grouped according to three dominant perspectives and, thus, approaches to study design; they are: the characteristics of hazards, the characteristics of risk perceivers, and the application of heuristics to inform risk judgments. In making these distinctions, we also highlight what we see as outstanding challenges for researchers and practitioners. We also highlight a few new research questions that we feel warrant attention.</p>

public, environmental & occupational health,mathematics, interdisciplinary applications,social sciences, mathematical methods
A theory of risk, return and solvency

Michael R. Powers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6687(95)00006-E

1995-01-01

Insurance: Mathematics and Economics

Abstract:In recent years, state regulators and state and federal lawmakers in the United States have become increasingly concerned with issues involving both the price and solvency regulation of insurers. In this article, we develop a risk-theoretic framework for studying both rate of return and solvency issues. Employing a certain class of diffusion processes to model insurer net worth, we use the expected discounted cost of insolvency (EDCI), a generalization of the probability of ruin, in constructing the regulator's objective function. This objective function is then used to solve for the optimal rate of return and the optimal loss-to-net worth ratio.
The Public Life of Private Law: Tort Law as a Risk Regulation Mechanism

Douglas A KYSAR

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2017.79

2018-03-01

European Journal of Risk Regulation

Abstract:Abstract Against the backdrop of contemporary climate change lawsuits, this article presents preliminary research findings regarding a remarkable and underappreciated moment in the common law pre-history of modern environmental, health, and safety regulation. The findings complicate the conventional academic story about the limited capabilities of tort law and its inevitable displacement by more institutionally robust and sophisticated forms of regulation. Section I offers a brief introduction, followed in Section II by a review of existing academic literature on the pros and cons of utilising tort law as a regulatory device. As will be seen, the consensus view seems to be that tort law is a clumsy and imperfect mechanism for addressing most environmental, health, and safety risks. Section III argues that the debate over tort law’s potential as a risk regulation mechanism ignores the distinctively private law history and character of that body of law, essentially asking tort to serve a purpose for which it was neither intended nor designed. Section IV then presents a case study of nuisance litigation in which the tort system achieves a remarkable and underappreciated risk regulation effect precisely by focusing narrowly on the traditional task of adjudicating alleged wrongs between private parties. Section V concludes.
Risk Regulation and the " Faces " of Uncertainty

Vern R. Walker

1998-01-01

Abstract:Introduction The problem of “decision making in the face of uncertainty” is how to regulate on the basis of incomplete information that has significant potential to be inaccurate. My primary goal is to clarify some aspects of such decisionmaking through surveying types of uncertainty inherent in information. I present a taxonomy for kinds of inherent uncertainty — a classification and description of the “faces”of uncertainty. A second goal is to identify which kinds of uncertainty can and cannot now be measured quantitatively. A contextual assumption is that we need to evaluate decision rules for dealing with faces of uncertainty. As a social enterprise, risk regulation, whatever its substantive objectives, should be as effective, efficient and equitable as practically possible. These “three E’s” form a set of “process objectives” or “meta-goals.” First, risk regulation should be as effective as possible to maximize the likelihood of achieving a selected balance of risk taking and avoidance. Second, with regard to efficiency, we may, e.g., try to minimize adverse collateral consequences, maximize net benefits after accounting for costs, or use available resources cost-effectively. Third, the goal of equitable results is partly a concern for affected parties’ appropriate distribution of costs and benefits, and partly a respect for the potentially affected parties’ substantive and procedural rights. While these three meta-goals are distinct and complementary, they are also sometimes in tension. The optimal and most achievable blend of all three meta-goals depends upon circumstances surrounding each regulatory action. These meta-goals form an evaluative context for risk regulation and derivatively for regulatory factfinding. A necessary condition for
Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality

Paul Slovic,Melissa L. Finucane,Ellen Peters,Donald G. MacGregor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x

2004-04-01

Risk Analysis

Abstract:Modern theories in cognitive psychology and neuroscience indicate that there are two fundamental ways in which human beings comprehend risk. The "analytic system" uses algorithms and normative rules, such as probability calculus, formal logic, and risk assessment. It is relatively slow, effortful, and requires conscious control. The "experiential system" is intuitive, fast, mostly automatic, and not very accessible to conscious awareness. The experiential system enabled human beings to survive during their long period of evolution and remains today the most natural and most common way to respond to risk. It relies on images and associations, linked by experience to emotion and affect (a feeling that something is good or bad). This system represents risk as a feeling that tells us whether it is safe to walk down this dark street or drink this strange-smelling water. Proponents of formal risk analysis tend to view affective responses to risk as irrational. Current wisdom disputes this view. The rational and the experiential systems operate in parallel and each seems to depend on the other for guidance. Studies have demonstrated that analytic reasoning cannot be effective unless it is guided by emotion and affect. Rational decision making requires proper integration of both modes of thought. Both systems have their advantages, biases, and limitations. Now that we are beginning to understand the complex interplay between emotion and reason that is essential to rational behavior, the challenge before us is to think creatively about what this means for managing risk. On the one hand, how do we apply reason to temper the strong emotions engendered by some risk events? On the other hand, how do we infuse needed "doses of feeling" into circumstances where lack of experience may otherwise leave us too "coldly rational"? This article addresses these important questions.

public, environmental & occupational health,mathematics, interdisciplinary applications,social sciences, mathematical methods
Rebecca Perlman, Regulating Risk: How Private Information Shapes Global Safety Standards Cambridge University Press, 2023

Gary Winslett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s1474745624000454

IF: 1.7082

2024-10-10

World Trade Review

Abstract://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS1474745624000454/resource/name/firstPage-pdf-S1474745624000454a.jpg

economics,international relations,law
A Guide to Corporate Risk Management

Gordon M. Bodnar,Erasmo Giambona,John R. Graham,Campbell R. Harvey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2479483

2014-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:A number of theories have been proposed to explain why firms hedge. Unfortunately, these theories are hard to test: While we might observe the hedges, it is hard to answer the question of “why” hedging occurs. Our paper addresses the “why” by directly questioning the managers that make the risk management decisions. Our results present a fresh, inside view of corporate risk management. Rather than hedging being conducted solely by “firms”, our results suggest that personal risk aversion in combination with other executive traits plays a key role in whether a company hedges. As such, our results suggest an important deficiency in many modern theories of risk management which ignore the role of the individual manager. These presentation slides are based on our paper "A View Inside Corporate Risk Management". The research paper is available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2438884.
The Risk Society Revisited: Social Theory and Risk Governance

A. McCright,Ortwin Renn,E. Rosa

2013-12-13

Abstract:Foreword: Risk Society as Political Category, by Ulrich Beck Preface Acknowledgments Introduction: Sketching the Contemporary Era Part I. Social Science Foundations of Risk 1 Meta-Theoretical Foundations 2 An Evolution of Risk: Why Social Science Is Needed to Understand Risk Part II. Risk and Social Theory 3 Overarching Perspective: The Rational Action Framework 4 Refl exive Modernization Theory and Risk: The Work of Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens 5 Risk in Systems: The Work of Niklas Luhmann 6 Jurgen Habermas and Risk: An Alternative to RAP? Part III. Risk Governance: Links between Theory and Strategy 7 The Emergence of Systemic Risks 8 The Three Companions of Risk: Complexity, Uncertainty, and Ambiguity 9 Risk Governance: A Synthesis 10 An Analytic-Deliberative Process: A Proposal for Better Risk Governance Conclusion: Risk Governance as a Catalyst for Social Theory and Praxis References Index

Sociology,Political Science,Philosophy
Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield

P Slovic

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1007041821623

Abstract:Risk management has become increasingly politicized and contentious. Polarized views, controversy, and conflict have become pervasive. Research has begun to provide a new perspective on this problem by demonstrating the complexity of the concept "risk" and the inadequacies of the traditional view of risk assessment as a purely scientific enterprise. This paper argues that danger is real, but risk is socially constructed. Risk assessment is inherently subjective and represents a blending of science and judgment with important psychological, social, cultural, and political factors. In addition, our social and democratic institutions, remarkable as they are in many respects, breed distrust in the risk arena. Whoever controls the definition of risk controls the rational solution to the problem at hand. If risk is defined one way, then one option will rise to the top as the most cost-effective or the safest or the best. If it is defined another way, perhaps incorporating qualitative characteristics and other contextual factors, one will likely get a different ordering of action solutions. Defining risk is thus an exercise in power. Scientific literacy and public education are important, but they are not central to risk controversies. The public is not irrational. Their judgments about risk are influenced by emotion and affect in a way that is both simple and sophisticated. The same holds true for scientists. Public views are also influenced by worldviews, ideologies, and values; so are scientists' views, particularly when they are working at the limits of their expertise. The limitations of risk science, the importance and difficulty of maintaining trust, and the complex, sociopolitical nature of risk point to the need for a new approach--one that focuses upon introducing more public participation into both risk assessment and risk decision making in order to make the decision process more democratic, improve the relevance and quality of technical analysis, and increase the legitimacy and public acceptance of the resulting decisions.
Risk Governance and Risk-Based Regulation: A Review of the International Academic Literature

Jeroen van der Heijden

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3406998

2019-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:This research paper presents findings from a broad scoping of the international academic literature on the use of risk governance and risk-based regulation. It addresses six themes: (1) the evolution of thinking about risk, risk governance and risk-based regulation, (2) examples of risk governance and risk-based regulation, (3) evidence of the performance of risk governance and risk-based regulation, and (4) the epistemic challenges and (5) ethical challenges that come with this approach to regulatory governance and practice.
Understanding Risky Behavior: The Influence of Cognitive, Emotional and Hormonal Factors on Decision-Making under Risk

Petko Kusev,Harry Purser,Renata Heilman,Alex J. Cooke,Paul Van Schaik,Victoria Baranova,Rose Martin,Peter Ayton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00102

IF: 3.8

2017-02-01

Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract:Financial risky decisions and evaluations pervade many human everyday activities. Scientific research in such decision-making typically explores the influence of socio-economic and cognitive factors on financial behavior. However, very little research has explored the holistic influence of contextual, emotional, and hormonal factors on preferences for risk in insurance and investment behaviors. Accordingly, the goal of this review article is to address the complexity of individual risky behavior and its underlying psychological factors, as well as to critically examine current regulations on financial behavior.

psychology, multidisciplinary
Toward a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analyzing Risk Coping Strategies

Yanwei Li,Araz Taeihagh,Martin de Jong,Andreas Klinke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13505

2020-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:The concept of risk has received scholarly attention from a variety of angles in the social, technical, and natural sciences. However, public policy scholars have not yet generated a comprehensive overview, shared understanding and conceptual framework of the main problem‐solving approaches applied by governments in coping with risks. In this regard, our main aim is to examine existing perspectives on prevailing risk coping strategies, find a common denominator among them and contribute to current policy and risk science literature through providing a conceptual framework that systematically spans the spectrum of risk coping strategies and incorporates the essence of the most relevant insights. To this end, we first examine the concept of risk in‐depth by exploring various definitions and types of risk. We then review different approaches proposed by different strands of research for addressing risk. Finally, we assess current knowledge and develop an amalgamated perspective for examining how risks can be addressed by classifying them into six general types of response (no response; prevention; control; precaution; toleration; and adaptation) as well as indicators to identify these responses. We argue that these strategies can function as a heuristic tool for decisionmakers in designing appropriate policies to cope with risks in decision‐making processes.
Knowledge is power – conceptualizing collaborative financial risk assessment

Thomas Michael Brunner-Kirchmair,Melanie Wiener

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/jrf-05-2018-0083

2019-08-12

The Journal of Risk Finance

Abstract:Purpose Inspired by new findings on and perceptions of risk governance, such as the necessity of taking a broader perspective in coping with risks in companies and working together in interactive groups with various stakeholders to deal with complex risks in the modern world, the purpose of this paper is looking for new ways to deal with financial risks. Current methods dealing with those risks are confronted with the problems of being primarily based on past data and experience, neglecting the need for objectivity, focusing on the short-term future and disregarding the interconnectedness of different financial risk categories. Design/methodology/approach A literature review of risk governance, financial risk management and open foresight was executed to conceptualize solutions to the mentioned-above problems. Findings Collaborative financial risk assessment (CFRA) is a promising approach in financial risk governance with respect to overcoming said problems. It is a method of risk identification and assessment, which combines aspects of “open foresight” and the financial risk management and governance literature. CFRA is characterized as bringing together members of different companies in trying to detect weak signals and trends to gain knowledge about the future, which helps companies to reduce financial risks and increase the chance of gaining economic value. By overcoming organizational boundaries, individual companies may gain the knowledge they would probably not have without CFRA and achieve a competitive advantage. Research limitations/implications A conceptual paper like the one at hand wants empirical proof. Therefore, the authors developed a research agenda in the form of five propositions for further research. Originality/value This paper discusses the existing problems of financial risk identification and assessment methods. It contributes to the existing literature by proposing CFRA as a solution to those problems and adding a new perspective to financial risk governance.

English Else
Better Business Regulation in a Risk Society

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4406-0

2013-01-01

Abstract:The premise of this volume is that business regulations are expected to grow in the near future as a consequence of the emergence of a “(world) risk society.” Risks related to terrorism, climate change, and financial crises, for example, will penetrate all conditions of life. Increasingly, the decisions and actions of some bring about risks for many in this era of globalization. Controlling these risks implies managing the world through high-quality regulation, with a particular emphasis on businesses and financial institutions. Central to this approach is the argument that a major, if not the primary, aim of regulation is to internalize externalities, or in a broader context, to repair market failure. Such repair can only be accomplished when the costs are smaller than the welfare gains. Featuring contributions from researchers and policy analysts from the fields of economics, management, law, sociology, political science, and environmental policy, this book focuses on three major topics: Social risks and business regulation Preconditions for better business regulation Theoretical issues related to better business regulation Collectively, the authors demonstrate that the easier it is for regulated businesses to comply at the lowest costs possible—without jeopardizing the related public goals—the greater the degree of compliance. When successful, the net result is a balance of individual and collective net benefits, and by further implication, sustainable business practice and economic growth.
The Risky Side of Leadership: Conceptualizing Risk Perceptions in Informal Leadership and Investigating the Effects of Their Over-Time Changes in Teams

Chen Zhang,Jennifer D. Nahrgang,Susan J. Ashford,D. Scott DeRue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.1350

2020-01-01

Organization Science

Abstract:Despite the common portrait of leadership as a worthy, needed, and frequently rewarded endeavor, individuals do not always step up to lead as informal leaders in their teams. In the present research, we introduce the idea of leadership risk perceptions, arguing that individuals sometimes see risks for themselves if they step up to lead. We conceptualize three types of leadership risk perceptions (interpersonal, image, and instrumental) and investigate how changes in these risk perceptions over time impact the overall level of informal leadership that individuals contribute in their teams, as well as how these risk perceptions’ change trajectories are shaped by the level of conflict in a team. To address these issues, we conducted a series of studies, exploring the relevance of the three risk perceptions qualitatively, developing measures for them, and then testing our hypotheses in a field study following 454 individuals working in 89 master of business administration (MBA) consulting teams. We found that a decrease in an individual’s leadership risk perceptions over time was related to the individual’s overall informal leadership contributions in the team, though the pattern of relationship was not the same for all three risk perceptions. Furthermore, in teams with higher levels of relationship conflict, interpersonal and image risk perceptions decreased less over time, suggesting the importance of the social context in shaping perceived risks. Overall, this research calls attention to the much under-investigated risky side of leadership and highlights a temporal approach to understanding the impact of leadership risk perceptions.
Agency, reflexivity and risk: cosmopolitan, neurotic or prudential citizen?

Sandra Walklate,Gabriel Mythen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2009.01301.x

2010-03-12

Abstract:The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the turn to risk within sociology and to survey the relationship between structure and agency as conceived by popular strands of risk theorizing. To this end, we appraise the risk society, culture of fear and governmentality perspectives and we consider the different imaginings of the citizen constructed by each of these approaches. The paper goes on to explore what each of these visions of citizenship implies for understandings of the structure/agency dynamic as it pertains to the question of reflexivity. In order to transcend uni-dimensional notions of citizenship and to reinvigorate sociological debates about risk, we call for conceptual analyses that are contextually rooted. Exampling the importance of knowledge contests around contemporary security threats and warnings of the deleterious effects of pre-emptive modes of regulation that derive from the 'risk turn' within social science, we argue for a more nuanced embrace of reflexivity within risk theorising in order to facilitate a more dynamic critique of the images of citizenship that such theorizing promotes.

sociology
Where You Stand Affects the Risks You Take: Socially Reference-Dependent Risk Attitudes

Jaimie W. Lien,Jie Zheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4021909

2022-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:How does an individual’s position within a social distribution influence their desire to take risk? Reference-dependent loss aversion (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979; Koszegi and Rabin, 2006, 2007) adapted to a social distribution setting, suggests that individuals could find risk more appealing at the tails of the distribution. We analyze this question in a laboratory experiment which allows subjects to take risks at different locations in the social distribution, against a realistic backdrop of real effort. Among subjects randomly assigned to low expected earnings, we find a convex relationship between risk-taking and social position consistent with a reference-point near the social median. However, for subjects assigned to high expected earnings, risk-taking tends to be concave in social position, consistent with having a reference-point near the top of the distribution. We find additional support for this empirical pattern using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY 97), in which similar patterns of convex and concave self-reported risk attitudes across the income distribution are documented among individuals with lower and higher expected lifetime earnings, respectively. The survey data results suggest that the risk-taking patterns found in the controlled laboratory setting have external validity in broader contexts. Finally, our finding that social reference points differ among individuals based on their expected earnings is consistent with a hypothesis of expectations-based reference point selection.
Information, Incentives, and Effects of Risk-Sharing on the Real Economy

Mark H. Liu,Wenfeng Wu,Tong Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3358153

2018-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:In the absence of market imperfections, the mutuality principle leads to efficient risk sharing and the Pareto optimal asset allocations. With market imperfections such as transaction costs and information asymmetry, risk-sharing becomes costly, and it can even lead to financial crises. We emphasize the impact of risk-sharing on the real economy, especially the incentives for the insured party to take on excessive risks because the downsides are borne by the insurer (i.e., the moral hazard problem). We then review selective literature and summarize papers included in this issue, grouping them into three broad categories: risk identification, risk measurement, and risk management techniques. We conclude by outlining several streams of future research, including mechanisms to monitor excessive risk-taking, how to mitigate risk interconnectedness, and the potential applications of FinTech in risk sharing.
Risk governance, structures, culture, and behavior: A view from the inside

Elizabeth Sheedy,Barbara Griffin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12200

2017-03-09

Abstract:Abstract Manuscript Type Empirical Research Questions/Issues Risk governance (emphasizing internal structures and risk culture) is a relatively new approach to the governance of financial institutions that is being widely adopted in the industry. Due to obvious assessment challenges, to date no evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of risk structures nor the status of risk culture in financial institutions. We therefore investigate the extent to which bank employees view risk structures as effective and risk culture as favorable. We also investigate how risk structures and risk culture together influence risk behavior. Research Findings/Insights Risk structures were typically rated as effective with the exception of remuneration. Risk culture varied at the business unit level as well as by firm and country. Senior leaders tended to have a rosier perception of risk culture than staff generally. Favorable risk culture together with effective risk structures was associated with high levels of desirable and low levels of undesirable risk behavior. Theoretical/Academic Implications The study provides a window into internal bank governance using a novel survey methodology. Many governance papers rely exclusively on external measures of governance; these do not guarantee effective internal risk governance. Practitioner/Policy Implications Further managerial and supervisory attention should be paid to ensure that culture and remuneration structures support risk management in financial institutions. As risk culture varies at the local level, it should be measured and managed at the local level. Senior leaders cannot rely on their own perceptions but should rely instead on independent assessments of risk culture.

management,business, finance

Risks and Risk Regulation: Personal Reflections

An institutional perspective on governance, power, and politics of financial risk

Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research

A theory of risk, return and solvency

The Public Life of Private Law: Tort Law as a Risk Regulation Mechanism

Risk Regulation and the " Faces " of Uncertainty

Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality

Rebecca Perlman, Regulating Risk: How Private Information Shapes Global Safety Standards Cambridge University Press, 2023

A Guide to Corporate Risk Management

The Risk Society Revisited: Social Theory and Risk Governance

Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield

Risk Governance and Risk-Based Regulation: A Review of the International Academic Literature

Understanding Risky Behavior: The Influence of Cognitive, Emotional and Hormonal Factors on Decision-Making under Risk

Toward a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analyzing Risk Coping Strategies

Knowledge is power – conceptualizing collaborative financial risk assessment

Better Business Regulation in a Risk Society

The Risky Side of Leadership: Conceptualizing Risk Perceptions in Informal Leadership and Investigating the Effects of Their Over-Time Changes in Teams

Agency, reflexivity and risk: cosmopolitan, neurotic or prudential citizen?

Where You Stand Affects the Risks You Take: Socially Reference-Dependent Risk Attitudes

Information, Incentives, and Effects of Risk-Sharing on the Real Economy

Risk governance, structures, culture, and behavior: A view from the inside