As Eumênides e a Crise: responsabilidade, risco moral e dissuasão no sistema financeiro

Ramiro Ávila Peres


We face objections against punishing financial firms and managers for producing risks for the financial system – that it’s either paternalistic or inefficient. Against the first: financial crises are so damaging that governments and deposit insurance funds have to intervene – an implicit guarantee to creditors. This is controversial from the perspective of political morality: it implies using resources from the public for the benefit of better-off people who willingly incur risks. So, we begin by studying a possible justification for this arrangement from the ‘incentives argument’ derived from the Rawls difference principle, in the light of G. Cohen’s criticisms. Against the second: we cannot completely dispense with coercive instruments - mainly for the moral hazard entailed by the implicit guarantee. Therefore, we conclude the threat of liability must have a punitive and a preventive character, extending to non-compliance with norms on risk even before generating major economic effects.


Incentivos; Responsabilidade; Risco Moral; Justiça; Finanças


Economic Analysis of Law Review  -  ISSN 2178-0587

Creative   Commons License Catholic University of Brasília - UCB