2014.12.18 银行家的希波克拉底誓言会带来更好的行为吗？

shiyi18

BUSINESS
Would a Hippocratic Oath for Bankers Lead to Better Behavior?
Starting in 2015, Dutch bankers must swear to uphold a 158-word honor code. Some fear it's hollow progress.

By Joe Pinsker

Jason Reed/Reuters
DECEMBER 18, 2014
SHARE
Can 158 words give the banking industry a moral core? That’s the question that the Netherlands will attempt to answer next year when it implements a requirement that its private bankers (all 90,000 of them) take an oath of good behavior. Bankers in the Netherlands, like those in America, have developed a reputation of recklessness and self-interest after the global financial crisis, and the chairman of the Dutch Banking Association believes an oath is what's needed to inspire bankers to get in touch with their better selves.

People have been taking oaths for a while—they preceded the first human religion—so the Dutch faith in oaths is understandable. And it never hurts to think creatively about responding to what many view as a deeply-rooted ethical deficiency in the banking industry.


But this oath is perhaps a little too hopeful (even considering that violating it could result in fines). It tries to provide the tools for dealing with complex moral quandaries through simple, vague language—which will have a hard time doing its job as long as destructive behavior continues to go unpunished. The original Hippocratic Oath (377 words) has been so effective not because it is particularly enlightening as a text, but because it exists in the context of a culture that already prioritizes and honors ethical behavior.

The Hippocratic Oath has been so effective because it exists in a culture that already prioritizes ethics.
Kara Tan Bhala, the founder of the Seven Pillars Institute, a nonprofit focusing on ethics in finance, is enthusiastic about the Netherlands’ new requirement. “Taking an oath is not quixotic at all,” she says. “Bankers are human and affected by symbolism and purpose.” Even if it’s not the only step that should be taken to change banking culture, it is a good first one, she thinks. She warns of being overly reliant on regulations to save the industry’s soul: “There cannot be a rule for every possible wrongful act in banking,” she says.


John Boatright, a professor of business ethics at Loyola University Chicago, is less optimistic. It’s not that oaths won’t work, he says, but that they won’t work in the absence of broader changes. “They are most significant as a signal, as an indication of an intent on the part of government and the industry to get serious,” he says. Boatright’s concern is that once bankers have telegraphed their good intent by taking an oath, there might be a sense that the industry’s ethical mess has been tidied up once and for all. That won’t be true, he argues, until bankers can sense the threats of significant prison sentences or fines in response to unsavory conduct.

Moreover, as Boatright argued in a May 2013 paper in the Review of Social Economy, banking would have a hard time with a Hippocratic-like oath because its moral questions have murkier answers than those in medicine. Patients’ needs are one-dimensional, in that it’s the doctor’s job simply to help them and ease their suffering. Banking is more complicated, as Boatright lays out:

“A bank’s relationships with all its clients fall on a continuum from a very strong fiduciary duty to act solely in a client’s interests in some matters to pure arm’s-length transactions with counterparties, who may be regarded as ‘sophisticated investors’ whose mistakes may be ruthlessly exploited as trading opportunities.”

A one-size-fits-all ethical guideline is of limited use in such a complex industry, and efforts would probably better be channeled toward more thoroughly teaching would-be bankers how to think through ethical dilemmas when they’re still in school.

Whether symbolic or substantive, this oath is still a commitment one is making to oneself, and some research suggests that voluntary commitments can induce better decision making, encouraging the sluggish to get into the gym or the unhealthy to eat more-nutritious foods. Tulane University's Janet Schwartz studies voluntary “commitment contracts.” “There is some experimental evidence that such oaths can work to prevent cheating—at least if people are reminded of them right before the chance to cheat,” she said. “It remains to be seen, however, whether taking a professional oath once, or on some infrequent basis, has a profound effect on behavior over time.”

Schwartz has found that even in mundane commitments, such as the decision to exercise, what matters is that the contract is enforceable. “In our study people couldn’t just like the idea of pre-commitment and show improvement. There had to be a real threat of loss,” she said. So when it comes to something less mundane—say, the management of trillions of dollars—it’s all the more important that consequences of bad behavior are constantly palpable.

The efficacy of the Dutch oath remains to be seen. It might work, but it probably won't. It's a symbolic gesture—here's to hoping it isn't a hollow one.

Joe Pinsker is a staff writer at The Atlantic.



银行家的希波克拉底誓言会带来更好的行为吗？
从2015年开始，荷兰银行家必须宣誓维护158个字的荣誉守则。一些人担心这只是空洞的进步。

Joe Pinsker报道

杰森-里德/路透社
2014年12月18日

158个字能给银行业一个道德核心吗？这是荷兰明年将试图回答的问题，届时它将实施一项要求，要求其私人银行家（全部9万名）进行良好行为的宣誓。荷兰的银行家和美国的银行家一样，在全球金融危机后形成了鲁莽和利己的名声，荷兰银行业协会主席认为，需要通过宣誓来激励银行家与他们更好的自我接触。

人们宣誓已经有一段时间了--它先于人类的第一个宗教--所以荷兰人对誓言的信仰是可以理解的。而且，创造性地思考如何应对许多人认为是银行业根深蒂固的道德缺陷，也是无妨的。


但是，这个誓言也许有点太有希望了（甚至考虑到违反它可能导致罚款）。它试图通过简单、模糊的语言提供处理复杂的道德难题的工具--只要破坏性的行为继续不受惩罚，它就很难完成其工作。最初的《希波克拉底誓言》（377个字）之所以如此有效，并不是因为它作为一个文本特别有启发性，而是因为它存在于一个已经优先考虑和尊重道德行为的文化背景中。

希波克拉底誓言之所以如此有效，是因为它存在于一种已经优先考虑道德的文化中。
专注于金融道德的非营利组织 "七大支柱研究所 "的创始人卡拉-谭-巴拉对荷兰的新要求充满热情。她说："宣誓一点也不玄乎，"她说。"银行家是人，受到象征意义和目的的影响。" 她认为，即使这不是改变银行文化应该采取的唯一步骤，但这是很好的第一步。她警告说，不要过分依赖法规来拯救这个行业的灵魂。她说："不可能对银行业的每一个可能的错误行为都有一个规则，"她说。


芝加哥洛约拉大学(Loyola University Chicago)的商业伦理学教授约翰-博莱特(John Boatright)则不那么乐观。他说，并不是说誓言不会起作用，而是说在没有更广泛的改变的情况下，誓言不会起作用。"他说："它们最重要的是作为一个信号，作为政府和行业认真对待的意图的一个表示。博特莱特担心的是，一旦银行家们通过宣誓来传递他们的善意，可能会有一种感觉，即该行业的道德混乱已经被一劳永逸地解决了。他认为，在银行家们能够感受到针对不光彩行为的重大监狱判决或罚款的威胁之前，这不会是真的。

此外，正如博特莱特在2013年5月发表在《社会经济评论》上的一篇论文中所说，银行业很难有类似希波克拉底式的誓言，因为其道德问题的答案比医学问题更模糊。病人的需求是单维的，因为医生的工作只是帮助他们，减轻他们的痛苦。正如博特莱特所言，银行业的情况更为复杂。

"银行与所有客户的关系是一个连续体，从在某些事项上完全按照客户的利益行事的非常强烈的信托责任，到与交易方的纯粹公平交易，交易方可能被视为'复杂的投资者'，他们的错误可能被无情地利用为交易机会。"

在这样一个复杂的行业中，一刀切的道德准则作用有限，最好是在未来的银行家还在学校的时候，就更彻底地教导他们如何思考道德困境的问题。

无论是象征性的还是实质性的，这个誓言仍然是一个人对自己的承诺，一些研究表明，自愿承诺可以诱发更好的决策，鼓励迟钝的人进入健身房或不健康的人吃更有营养的食物。杜兰大学的珍妮特-施瓦茨研究自愿 "承诺合同"。"她说："有一些实验证据表明，这种誓言可以防止作弊--至少如果人们在有机会作弊之前就被提醒的话。"然而，还有待观察的是，发一次职业誓言，或者在一些不经常发生的基础上，是否对长期的行为有深刻的影响。"

施瓦茨发现，即使在平凡的承诺中，如决定锻炼身体，重要的是合同是可执行的。"在我们的研究中，人们不可能只是喜欢预先承诺的想法并表现出改善。必须有一个真正的损失威胁，"她说。因此，当涉及到一些不那么平凡的事情时--比如说，管理数万亿美元--不良行为的后果始终是可以感觉到的，这一点就更加重要了。

荷兰誓言的效力还有待观察。它可能会起作用，但可能不会。这是一个象征性的姿态，希望它不是一个空洞的姿态。

Joe Pinsker是《大西洋》杂志的一名工作人员。