Measures of risk associated to regulations compliance: a laboratory experiment on the use of common-pool resources

The present research examined the influence of different risk perspectives by the use of four different target persons (who could be affected: abstract person, self, specific person, and specific others) and of four different questionnaire answer formats (rating, open percentage, open, and closed frequency) on risk assessments. It was assumed that subjects use two different systems in terms of probabilistic reasoning: a distributional approach for abstract targets leading to higher risk estimates and a singular approach for specific targets leading to lower risk assessments. According to unrealistic optimism (UO) research (showing higher risk assessments for an abstract person than for self), the assumption was that risk assessments for a specific (named) target lead to lower risk assessments compared to an abstract target. Further, common quantitative answer formats for assessing risk were compared to explore differences in risk estimates. The hypotheses were tested using data of a sample of 512 students from a Bavarian university. The frequently confirmed finding of UO could be replicated with both rating scale and open frequency scale, which appeared to be more sensitive compared to the other used scales. However, UO disappeared when the comparison target was specific. Further, risk assessments for an abstract target were highest within every answer format and lowest for specific targets. Furthermore, results revealed that the type of answer format has a moderating effect on the extent of the influence of risk perspective on risk assessments. Overall, this study gives evidence that both the chosen scale and the risk perspective strongly influence risk assessments. Results aim to contribute to the research fields of quantitative assessment of perceived risk. They suggest that probabilistic reasoning in regard to risk not only underlies motivational or cognitive ego-defensive mechanisms but is rather presumably caused by the use of different systems of inferential strategies.     

Determinants of heterogeneity in European credit ratings

In this study, we empirically analyze the determinants of heterogeneity in rating assessments across different segments of the European loan market. We conduct a benchmarking analysis using rating information on European corporate obligors from nine major Austrian banks that have a large share of foreign lending, particularly in the Central and Eastern European region. We provide evidence that, generally, overall heterogeneity among rating outcomes for foreign markets is higher than for domestic markets. Furthermore, we show that heterogeneity increases in transition economies and those markets where Austrian bank involvement is relatively low. Our evidence supports the hypothesis that heterogeneity in the assessment of credit risk is determined not only by the objective quality of information, which is deemed to be lower in transition economies, but also by the subjective access to information about obligors measured by the level of domestic bank involvement in the respective foreign market. Furthermore, we quantify potential effects on regulatory capital requirements.     

Cooperation with take-off countries

In consequence of the growing economic differences between the developing countries themselves, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has developed, alongside plans to combat absolute poverty, a concept for cooperation with relatively advanced developing countries. Rainer Offergeld, Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation, explains this concept.     

On the Credibility Determinants of a Quality Label: a Quasi-Natural Experiment Using the Example of <Emphasis Type="Italic">Stiftung Warentest</Emphasis>

In 2013, Stiftung Warentest, which is one of the most important consumer organizations in Germany, tested hazelnut chocolate for their leading magazine called test. The hazelnut chocolate of Ritter Sport, which is a high-quality producer of chocolate in Germany, failed the test and received the grade “unsatisfactory.” Stiftung Warentest accused Ritter Sport of labelling an artificial flavouring as a natural flavouring. Ritter Sport rejected the accusation, went to court, and won the trial. Stiftung Warentest had to withdraw the issue in question of test magazine. The affair received broad media coverage from December 2013 to September 2014. Using the case Ritter Sport versus Stiftung Warentest, it is analysed whether negative headlines really undermine the credibility of a quality label by examining Stiftung Warentest and their quality label called test. In addition, it is examined what can be done to restore or, more generally, increase the credibility of a quality label. Based on a quasi-natural experiment, it is found that the negative headlines regarding Stiftung Warentest have undermined the credibility of the test label. It is also found that the credibility of the test label can be increased by providing reference values to the tests, strengthening the independence of Stiftung Warentest, and using laboratory methods for the tests. For the most part, the same holds true for any quality label. High-quality producers, quality-conscious consumers, and the awarding organization of the quality label can benefit from an increased credibility of a quality label.