Skip to main content

The criminal responsibilities of … economists?

Using the events of L'Aquila and the subsequent convictions of Italian seismologists as a starting point, Dr Ioannis Oikonomou goes on to explore the extent to which economists could and should be held accountable for economic and financial turmoils.

In case you have missed it, a few months ago it was widely reported in the media that half a dozen Italian seismologists were convicted for manslaughter after being accused of not being able to predict (and giving false assurances prior to) the earthquake that struck L’Aquila and led to the death of 300 people. Reactions varied greatly: from the Royal Society and US National Academy issuing brief statements and simply condemning the decision of the Italian court, to individuals claiming we are moving back to “the medieval ages” and “the Spanish Inquisition model” to harshly worded articles claiming that scientists need to be held accountable : “those who claim the title “scientist”, be it natural or social, expect to combine the immunity of diplomats and the infallibility of popes.”

By now you are probably wondering what does any of this have to do with a finance-related blog and when will the economists mentioned in the title show up. Besides, unlike seismology or meteorology, finance and economics are hardly the scientific fields that can be connected to catastrophic events that may lead to the loss of human lives.

Or are they?

You can continue reading the article in full on the ICMA Centre's blog.

Published 4 February 2013

You might also like

A Free Lunch?

29 August 2018
Fidelity, the asset manager with $2.4 trillion assets under management, recently announced the launch of two index mutual funds with a 0% fee! This announcement is interesting for several reasons. First, the asset management industry has been involved in an intense price war and this new fee level of 0% represents a very tough benchmark for the competition to beat. Not surprisingly, the share price of rival asset managers fell by a few percentage points shortly after the announcement. Second, the new fee level is unusual as it indicates that, for the first time, investors could get exposure to both US and international equities without incurring any fee. This is a curious business decision. How will Fidelity manage to pay for all its expenses? Will this product be a loss-making venture? Is there more to it than meets the eyes?

Reflections on switching as a regulatory intervention

3 September 2018
In certain sectors - notably banking, energy and telecoms - customers are exhorted almost continuously to consider ‘switching’ supplier. Organisational structures have been developed to facilitate switching and the strategy of switching tends to be strongly supported by the regulator in those industries. For example, over 40 UK banks and building societies now participate in the ‘Current Account Switch Service’ run by the payment service, Bacs. In the energy sector, there is an ‘EnergySwitch guarantee’ and the regulator (Ofgem) provides advice on how to switch to a new supplier, as does Ofcom for the telecoms sector.

ICMA Centre Students Beat World-Class Finance Schools in International Trading Competition

2 February 2006