Below are details of the iSPER MIC Groups Autumn 2017 seminar programme, with links to related papers. For further information about these seminars please contact Dr Fangya Xu.
4 October - Neil Smith (Plymouth University) - Mr Godley, Mr Forrester and Stock-Flow Consistent modelling through the lens of System Dynamics - 16.00 - 17.30, Room 404, Cookworthy Building.
Neil Smith will be presenting his paper on Stock-Flow Consistent Modelling and Systems Dynamics.
Stock-Flow Consistent (SFC) modelling has become a popular approach for macroeconomic modelling. However, the strengths of the accounting matrix approach have been critiqued for: having no microfoundations; focusing too much on monetary accounting; paying too little attention to the behavioural closure of models; being too cumbersome; and having opaque dynamics. This paper argues that combining SFC modelling with the principles of System Dynamics (SD) may help address such critiques, and also represents a useful approach for pedagogy. System dynamics shares the SFC community’s respect for the concept of stock-flow consistency, but has traditionally focused on real factors, explicitly recognizing that interactions take place between boundedly rational actors in historic time where various information feedbacks and delays are crucial to producing fundamental modes of dynamic behaviour. More than a mere simulation tool, system dynamics is an applied methodology of systems thinking. It seeks to identify and explain complex dynamics through generic system structures. The paper reviews the current literature in this emerging hybrid SFC-SD methodology and utilises Godley and Lavoie’s simplest Model SIM/SIMEX to elaborate the approach which may be seen as potentially enhancing both Post Keynesian methodology and pedagogy.
18 October - Dr Mike Felgenhauer - The (face) value of (non-) manipulable arguments - 16.00 - 17.30, Room 401 Cookworthy Building
This paper studies quality requirements for different types of arguments. The arguments either stem from sequential private experimentation or they are fabricated. For example, for model based logical arguments experimentation is possible, but manipulation is not. For regressions on a private database experimentation and manipulation are possible. The face value of the arguments required for persuasion should differ. Standards tend to be higher for a theoretical model than for an empirical analysis. We study implications for the philosophy of science (e.g., field contingent quality standards and the evolution of scientific debates).
1 November - Dr Simon Ashby (University of Plymouth) - Operational Risk and Reputation in Financial Institutions: Does Media Tone Make a Difference? - 16:00 - 17:30, Cookworthy Building 401.
Operational risk announcements are unexpected adverse media news supposedly harming the reputation of financial institutions. This paper examines the equity-based and debt-based reputational effects of financial sentiment tones in operational risk announcements and shows how such reputational effects are moderated by alternative sources of public information. Our analysis reveals that the net negative tone and litigious tone have adverse reputational effects and the uncertainty tone mitigates the adverse reputational impact. Additionally, alternative, simultaneous sources of information neutralize the reputational effects of textual tones. First, loss amount disclosure dissolves the favorable (adverse) reputational effects of the uncertainty tone (litigious tone) whilst regulatory announcements counteract the favorable (adverse) reputational consequences of the uncertainty tone (litigious tone). Moreover, by resolving most of the ambiguity underlying the operational risk event, final settlements remove, if not reverse, the favorable reputational impact of the uncertainty tone. Overall, our findings indicate that the reputational effects of the media materialize most when there is lack of certain, regulated public information about the operational risk event.Read Simon’s paper.