Refine
Year of publication
- 2016 (54) (remove)
Document Type
- Journal article (31)
- Conference proceeding (14)
- Book chapter (6)
- Review (2)
- Working Paper (1)
Has full text
- yes (54) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (54)
Institute
- ESB Business School (54) (remove)
Publisher
This article is a review of the book "Brain computation as hierarchical abstraction" by Dana H. Ballard published by MIT press in 2015. The book series computational neuroscience familiarizes the reader with the computational aspects of brain functions based on neuroscientific evidence. It provides an excellent introduction of the functioning, i.e. the structure, the network and the routines of the brain in our daily life. The final chapters even discuss behavioral elements such as decision-making, emotions and consciousness. These topics are of high relevance in other sciences such as economics and philosophy. Overall, Ballard’s book stimulates a scientifically well-founded debate and, more importantly, reveals the need of an interdisciplinary dialogue towards social sciences.
The financial crisis of 2007-2010 was probably one of the greatest, most lustrous black-swan events that people of our generation(s) will experience – and at its heart, it was a dynamic phenomenon. It is stated in the vision of the System Dynamics Society that we aspire to transform society by influencing decision-making. Yet, it seems as if system dynamics did not play any significant role in this crisis: we did not examine the markets, we did not provide insights to banks, and we did not warn governments or the people. In our presentation we describe the dynamics involved in a housing bubble, and describe what made the last one different. With the insights gained from this exercise we conclude that, from a system dynamics perspective, the dimension of the financial crisis of 2007-2009 was eminently foreseeable, which will lead us to pose the following question: where were we as a field while this crisis was unfolding, why were we not active players? We present a range of potential answers to this question, hoping to provoke some reflection… and maybe some (re)action.
This article analyses and compares the performance of regulators in the fields of finance and sport, especially cycling. I hypothesize that the courses of crises or scandals is the best time to study the lessons of regulatory response. First, I take into account the differences in both finance and cycling by looking at the nature of the rules and institutions governing the field. Second, I estimate the attention effect on new regulation in response to crises or scandals. The interest of the paper is in the alignment of incentives to prevent regulatory capture and to ensure accountability and enforceability. The paper concludes that the differences hold important lessons that call for the reform of rules and institutions governing finance and cycling alike.