Search results

With this chapter, the authors reveal the content of the concept of economic capital, explore approaches to its evaluation, assess the implementation of the concept of economic capital in the national banking system, and identify problems and possible directions for development and convergence of the Russian approach with international requirements. As a result, the need to apply the model of economic capital in assessing bank capital is substantiated. A concept (from Latin “conception” – understanding a system) is a specific way of understanding (interpreting) an object, phenomenon, or process; that is, the main point of view on the subject and the guiding idea for its systematic coverage. This term is also used to refer to a leading idea and a constructive principle in scientific activity.

Initially, since 1988, under prudential supervision – a direct, quantitative-oriented approach, there existed a concept of regulatory capital, reflected in the document “International Convergence of Measurement Methods and Capital Standards” (Basel I). Regulatory capital was calculated to meet regulatory oversight standards. It was intended to cover unforeseen losses and reserves already identified; thereafter, expected losses were created.

The concept of regulatory capital proceeds from the premise that if capital must cover unexpected losses, it should be borne in mind that a surprise approximates uncertainty. Consequently, the theoretical possibility of occurrence of certain events is excluded and, hence, the methodical and practical ground of the concept of economic capital disappears, which is based on the assessment of default probability and the magnitude of its negative consequences for creditors.

The change in trends in banking regulation (the actions of supervisory authorities in matters of capital adequacy acquired a risk-oriented nature that takes into account the risks assumed by each bank and the quality of their management) led to the emergence of the concept of economic capital in 2004, which is reflected in the document “International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Standards of Capital: New Approaches” (Basel II).

According to this concept, commercial banks must have sufficient capital to cover not only credit and market, but also the operational risks. Thus, economic capital takes into account all the risky circumstances that a banking institution may encounter. The need to apply the method of economic capital in assessing the capital of a bank is justified and significant.

Basel III regulations require banks to protect themselves against strategic risk. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive and measurable definition of this risk and proposes a framework to estimate economic capital requirements.

The paper studies the literature and solicits expert opinion in formulating a comprehensive and measurable definition of strategic risk. The paper postulates that the economic capital for a bank’s strategic risk should be estimated using the cost of equity as the profitability threshold, rather than zero and develops a simulation-based framework to estimate economic capital.

The framework closely matches the actual economic capital outlay for strategic risk from our case study of ABN AMRO. It is shown that a bank’s strategic growth plans can fall into one of two scenarios based on risk-return characteristics. In one scenario, the required economic capital outlay will increase, and decrease in the other.

This framework is generalizable and makes use of widely accepted and used practices in banks, making it readily implementable in practice. It does not introduce errors resulting from model selection, parameterizations or complex calculations.

Society would be worse off in the absence of banking and lending services. Banks need to take risks to grow and stay competitive. The framework facilitates better strategic risk management, protecting banks from collapse and reducing the need for taxpayer-funded bailouts.

The paper provides a measurable and practitioner-verified definition of strategic risk and proposes a simple framework to estimate economic capital requirements, a crucial topic, given the threats and increased levels of strategic risk facing banks.

This study aims to examine the effects of levee construction and tropical storms on regional economic growth of a coastal community. The study's goal is to highlight feedbacks important to climate change adaptation in the coastal zone.

The research utilizes a dynamic feedback model that includes coastal engineering, urban economic development, and natural ecosystem response. The model is a tool to help discuss important long‐term issues and to highlight areas of policy intervention. The data for the model come from US Census data, the global DIVA coastal database, and IPCC projections.

The results show urban areas facing elevated levels of exposure because of residents' low understanding of climatic risks. Coastal managers may actually increase long‐term exposure by attempting to protect coastal regions from long‐term sea‐level rise. Coastal defenses lead to a false sense of safety, increasing economic development in the short term, but causing larger economic losses in the long term, especially after a storm. Storm intensity and levee protection are important in determining an “economic tipping point” of long term growth – whether a community continues to grow or faces economic stagnation or decline. If storm damage is large enough, the community passes the tipping point and economic growth never recovers. The presence of levees changes the tipping point dynamic, making communities more resilient as long as there is no levee breach.

Coastal communities face increasing risk from accelerated sea‐level rise and tropical storms. Understanding the long‐term dynamics of protection decisions is important for creating effective adaptation policies.

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to argue that utility maximisation, taken from a narrow economic understanding of rationality, frames contemporary business school pedagogy and management theory. The chapter will illustrate this observation by detailing the rational framing assumptions in social capital literature. The chapter will argue that these framing rational notions foster a perspective that inclines towards excessive self-interest as well as a concomitant lack of fellow feeling or morality.

Methodology – Literature review of Social Capital theory.

Findings – The chapter demonstrates that the narrow economic understanding of rationality that predominates as the framing notion in management theory tends towards amorality as it privileges individual self-interest. In consequence, the significance of ethics and cooperation are under-reported and under-emphasised which leads to Corporate Social Irresponsibility (CSI). These observations are discussed with reference to social capital theory.

Research implications – To consider the significance of the under-acknowledged rational background or framing perspectives in distorting theory and empirical research in social capital literature, and more generally in contemporary management literatures and business school pedagogy.

Social implication – There is a need to re-examine and challenge the validity and application of rational notions in contemporary management literatures and pedagogy.

Originality – The chapter identifies that a narrow utility maximising understanding of rationality frames and therefore inhibits current management literatures and pedagogy, including social capital literature.

A conceptual and analytical approach is presented to reconcile weak and strong sustainability. It involves a reconsideration of the conception of total capital from an ecological‐economic system perspective. In particular, natural capital is classified into non‐renewable resources, renewable resources that are harvested, and those that are not used in production. Strong sustainability is defined in terms of constant environmental quality. Weak sustainability is characterised by non‐decreasing value of aggregate income and environmental quality, and formalised in terms of a “preference‐based social value function”. Ecosystem resilience and basic human needs are introduced as minimum sustainability requirements, and a “sustainability‐based social value function” is proposed, which is sensitive to potentially irreversible changes at the boundaries of the restricted opportunity space. It implies higher values associated to the trade‐offs between income and the environment than the preference‐based function, and the fact that sustainable development is only feasible if both minimum criteria are fulfilled.

1.1. Logical Necessity of the Three Dimensions as a Unit of Thought The mathematician does not look kindly on the simple question of why natural space should consist of precisely three dimensions. Instead of giving an answer he assumes a silent smile and shows us a version of space with an infinity of dimensions, as if space were some kind of toy for him to fiddle with to his heart's content.

The objectives of this paper are to: define business risk; identify whether economic capital could be used to mitigate this risk; and investigate business‐risk measurement methodologies.

The paper analyzes definitions used in theory and practice and derived a definition. It analyzes three measurement methodologies: analogue companies/peer group analysis, statistical methods, and scenario analysis. These methodologies are tested against the criteria of effective management control, because economic capital is increasingly used as a management control instrument.

Economic capital can be used as business‐risk mitigant albeit not the only one. The measurement methodology of scenario analysis satisfies most of the criteria for effective control.

This paper opens a discussion to further develop the scenario approach in theory and practice.

Despite the amount of economic capital that financial institutions hold to cover business risk, it has received little attention in literature. This paper opens a discussion on a relatively new field of research.

This chapter explores the inter-urban dimensions of contemporary inequality in the United Kingdom. It does so by drawing on quantitative measures of inequality from the British Broadcasting Corporation’s ‘Great British Class Survey’ experiment of 2011–2013 and representative economic indicators of productivity. It takes its starting point as an acknowledgement of the deepening inequalities in western, developed economies, a reality reflecting in the burgeoning of literature on macro-economic disparities at the start of the twenty-first century. Whilst invaluable, this literature has tended to focus solely on economic definitions of inequality between countries or regions. The purpose of this chapter is to continue the expansion of our understanding of the manifold dimensions of inequality into the social and cultural domains. The data from the Great British Class Survey are uniquely positioned to do this: approximately 325,000 people participated in the online questionnaire, providing information not just on their stocks of economic capital but also on the size and scope of their social networks and the nature and extent of their cultural activities. The size of the sample thus provides an unparalleled tool for analysing the complex nuances of contemporary inequality in the United Kingdom using a framework informed by the theoretical approach to cultural class analysis pioneered by Pierre Bourdieu. The analysis here focuses solely on inter-urban disparities in the United Kingdom and demonstrates the ways in which economic inequalities are reflected and reinforced in the social and cultural domains.

Henryk Grossman was the first person to systematically explore Marx’s explanation of capitalist crises in terms of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall and to place it in the context of the distinction between use and exchange value. His “The Law of Accumulation and Breakdown of the Capitalist System” remains an important reference point in the Marxist literature on economic crises. That literature has been plagued by distortions of Grossman’s position which derive from early hostile reviews of his book. These accused Grossman of a mechanical approach to the end of capitalism and of neglecting factors which boost profit rates. Grossman, in fact, contributed a complementary economic element to the recovery of Marxism undertaken by Lenin (particularly in the area of Marxist politics) and Lukács (in philosophy). In both published and unpublished work, Grossman also dealt with and even anticipated criticisms of his methodology and treatment of countertendencies to the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. Far from being mechanical, his economic analysis can still assist the struggle for working class self-emancipation.

Countries worldwide aim to improve their comparative advantages by efficiently using scarce resources for economic growth and development. While many studies have been conducted to measure intellectual capital at the firm's level, measuring it at the national level has been under-examined. In addition, while the important role of national intellectual capital in economic growth has been theoretically recognized in literature, this important link has largely been ignored in empirical analyses.

This study uses the newly developed index of national intellectual capital from Vo and Tran's (2022) study to examine its effects on national economic growth in the long run. The dynamic common correlated effects technique and the pooled mean group estimation are used on the sample of 23 economies in the Asia–Pacific region from 2000 to 2020.

Findings from this study confirm the positive and significant contribution of the national intellectual capital to economic growth in the region. The authors also find that, as a feedback effect, economic growth will also enhance and improve the accumulation of national intellectual capital.

The findings of this paper provide valuable evidence and implications for policymakers in managing and improving national intellectual capital in the Asia–Pacific region.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first empirical study to examine the impact of national intellectual capital on economic growth in the long run in the Asia–Pacific economies.