Banking bad? A global field experiment on risk, reward, and regulation


Journal article


Michael G. Findley, D. Nielson, J. C. Sharman
American Journal of Political Science, 2024

Semantic Scholar DOI
Cite

Cite

APA   Click to copy
Findley, M. G., Nielson, D., & Sharman, J. C. (2024). Banking bad? A global field experiment on risk, reward, and regulation. American Journal of Political Science.


Chicago/Turabian   Click to copy
Findley, Michael G., D. Nielson, and J. C. Sharman. “Banking Bad? A Global Field Experiment on Risk, Reward, and Regulation.” American Journal of Political Science (2024).


MLA   Click to copy
Findley, Michael G., et al. “Banking Bad? A Global Field Experiment on Risk, Reward, and Regulation.” American Journal of Political Science, 2024.


BibTeX   Click to copy

@article{michael2024a,
  title = {Banking bad? A global field experiment on risk, reward, and regulation},
  year = {2024},
  journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
  author = {Findley, Michael G. and Nielson, D. and Sharman, J. C.}
}

Abstract

Are banks sensitive to risk and reward in following global corporate transparency rules? Using a worldwide field experiment, this study evaluates competing predictions from expected utility, behavioralist, and institutionalist accounts. We incorporated a dozen companies around the world to make over 15,000 email solicitations asking for corporate accounts from 5000 of the world's internationally connected banks. Treatments randomize the risk profiles of different companies—by their countries’ association with corruption, terrorism, and tax evasion—and vary rewards by stating differing amounts of business revenues. The outcomes are the rates at which banks offer accounts and comply with rules on customer identification. The results suggest that banks are moderately responsive to risk—though not reward—but the magnitude of the effects is small, providing mixed evidence for conventional models and suggestive support for institutionalist accounts.