Bank Competition: Measurement,Decision‐Making,and Risk‐Taking

This paper investigates whether greater competition increases or decreases individual bank and banking system risk. Using a new text‐based measure of competition, and an instrumental variables analysis that exploits exogenous variation in bank deregulation, we provide robust evidence that greater competition increases both individual bank risk and a bank's contribution to system‐wide risk. Specifically, we find that higher competition is associated with lower underwriting standards, less timely loan loss recognition, and a shift toward noninterest revenue. Further, we find that higher competition is associated with higher stand‐alone risk of individual banks, greater sensitivity of a bank's downside equity risk to system‐wide distress, and a greater contribution by individual banks to downside risk of the banking sector.     

Facts & figures: Health care: Private and public spending,resources, need and provision; Privatisation: A further progress report

Labour Market Policy and Unemployment Insurance Anders Björklund, Robert Haveman, Robinson Hollister and Bertil Holmlund. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 205 pp. £25. 00. ISBN 0 19 828323 7.

Survey of Computer Fraud &; Abuse 1990 Audit Commission, Nicholson House, Lime Kiln Close, Stoke Gifford, Bristol BS12 6SU, UK. £7.50. (A supplement at £9.50 details all the individual cases used in compiling the report.)

Public Sector Financial Management H. M. Coombs and D. E. Jenkins. Chapman &; Hall, London (1991). x + 294 pp. £14.95. ISBN 0 412 38550 3.     

Limits‐to‐arbitrage,investment frictions,and the investment effect: New evidence

This study comprehensively reexamines the debate over behavioral and rational explanations for the investment effect in an updated sample. We closely follow the previous literature and provide several differences. Our tests include five prominent measures of corporate investment and corporate profitability in q‐theory and recent investment‐based asset pricing models. Both classical and Bayesian inferences show that limits‐to‐arbitrage tend to be supported by more evidence than investment frictions for all investment measures. When idiosyncratic volatility and cash flow volatility are used in measuring investment frictions, the inference is more favorable for the rational explanation.     

Accountants’ Whistle‐Blowing Intentions: The Impact of Retaliation,Age, and Gender

Accounting practices and the role of auditors have been widely implicated in many corporate scandals. Accountants are likely to witness serious wrongdoings at their workplace, presenting them with a difficult choice as to whether or not to whistle‐blow. This study reports online survey results of whistle‐blowing intentions of the members of Certified Practising Accountants of Australia. The study provides data on the effect of threat of retaliation, age and gender on accountants’ propensity to blow the whistle. The results show a complex interaction effect of retaliation, participants’ age, and gender on their propensity to blow the whistle. Among the early career accountants, male accountants are more likely than female accountants to blow the whistle. Accountants in the mid‐age group are not only likely to whistle‐blow when there is retaliation but also tend to be more willing to do so when that retaliation involves a direct personal loss rather than a loss to their associates. Accountants in the age group of 45 years or above respond to retaliation differently depending on their gender. Specifically, female accountants’ propensity to blow the whistle in this age group tends to decline as the retaliation threat increases from weak to strong, yet the change in retaliation threat has little impact on male accountants’ propensity to blow the whistle. These results and their implications are discussed.     

Futures-thinking and identity: Why “Futures Studies” is not a field, discipline, or discourse: a response to Ziauddin Sardar's ‘the namesake’

The term we use to describe the study or research of the future or futures is indeed important, and “futures studies” is preferable, although there is considerable dispute as to who and what is involved. Even more important is the far deeper problem of defining the “we” and what “we” in fact do. Futures studies not only considers wickedly complex problems, but it is itself a wicked entity, with many puzzles and contradictions. To illustrate, a taxonomy of 12 types of futurists, first articulated in 1985, is revisited, with special emphasis on the relative handful of Synoptic Generalists, the larger category of Specialized Futurists, the still larger entity of Futurized Specialists, and the largest entity of Closet Futurists who think about futures-often in a leading-edge way-but do not identify at all with futures studies, or are seen as futurists. Most contributors to Futures and other futures journals, as well as listees in the 2000 Futurist Directory, appear to have a secondary “futurist” identity at best. The fuzzy entity of “futures studies” is thus quite unlike any field or discipline, because it is easily entered by specialists who identify with the entity weakly, while many of the most important futures-thinkers are outside the entity. Instead of denying this paradox, the reality should be acknowledged, and an alterative paradigm for “futures studies” should be seriously considered.