In Too-Big-To-Fail We Trust: Ethics and Banking in the Era of COVID-19

Nizan Geslevich Packin
{"title":"In Too-Big-To-Fail We Trust: Ethics and Banking in the Era of COVID-19","authors":"Nizan Geslevich Packin","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3644866","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 economic crisis has brought to light something very broken in the American banking system—banks prioritize their own profits over the interests of those they serve and interests of social justice. And they are permitted to do so because they do not owe a fiduciary duty to their customers and are not social welfare maximizing entities.In an effort to support the economy, the US government passed numerous stimulus acts, which included, among other things, a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), and the distribution of relief checks to consumers. To effectuate the massive distribution of liquidity on an expedited basis, the government relied on big banks. But instead of prioritizing the public welfare, the banks were focused on their bottom lines and thus did not carry out the true intent of the stimulus. For example, with respect to the PPP, although the Small Business Administration was required to process the loans on a first-come, first-served basis, the banks were not. And absent that requirement, the banks prioritized richer and bigger customers. As a result, women and minority-owned small businesses, as well as peripheral area-based small businesses, found themselves facing more barriers to getting loans. Similarly, with respect to the direct distribution of relief checks to consumers, banks prioritized their own interests over those of their customers. For example, in an effort to collect bank debt, banks froze and seized the funds from government relief checks deposited into consumer accounts before the consumers that needed those funds received them. Consequently, various state attorney generals and courts had to intervene, and mandate that the consumers be permitted to use the funds as the government had intended—for necessities like food and shelter.There are several techniques we can employ to modify banks’ ethical behavior and cultural norms. This Essay discusses such methods, which include (i) a top-down regulatory approach;(ii) the creation of market-led initiatives;(iii) an interpretive fix, offered by the judicial system;and (iv) a public criticism and shaming semi-regulatory approach.","PeriodicalId":388011,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3644866","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The COVID-19 economic crisis has brought to light something very broken in the American banking system—banks prioritize their own profits over the interests of those they serve and interests of social justice. And they are permitted to do so because they do not owe a fiduciary duty to their customers and are not social welfare maximizing entities.In an effort to support the economy, the US government passed numerous stimulus acts, which included, among other things, a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), and the distribution of relief checks to consumers. To effectuate the massive distribution of liquidity on an expedited basis, the government relied on big banks. But instead of prioritizing the public welfare, the banks were focused on their bottom lines and thus did not carry out the true intent of the stimulus. For example, with respect to the PPP, although the Small Business Administration was required to process the loans on a first-come, first-served basis, the banks were not. And absent that requirement, the banks prioritized richer and bigger customers. As a result, women and minority-owned small businesses, as well as peripheral area-based small businesses, found themselves facing more barriers to getting loans. Similarly, with respect to the direct distribution of relief checks to consumers, banks prioritized their own interests over those of their customers. For example, in an effort to collect bank debt, banks froze and seized the funds from government relief checks deposited into consumer accounts before the consumers that needed those funds received them. Consequently, various state attorney generals and courts had to intervene, and mandate that the consumers be permitted to use the funds as the government had intended—for necessities like food and shelter.There are several techniques we can employ to modify banks’ ethical behavior and cultural norms. This Essay discusses such methods, which include (i) a top-down regulatory approach;(ii) the creation of market-led initiatives;(iii) an interpretive fix, offered by the judicial system;and (iv) a public criticism and shaming semi-regulatory approach.
《我们信任大而不倒:新冠肺炎时代的道德与银行业》
新冠肺炎经济危机暴露了美国银行体系的一些严重问题——银行将自己的利润置于服务对象的利益和社会正义的利益之上。它们之所以被允许这样做,是因为它们对客户不负有信托义务,也不是社会福利最大化的实体。为了支持经济,美国政府通过了许多刺激法案,其中包括工资保护计划(PPP)和向消费者发放救济支票。为了快速实现流动性的大规模分配,政府依赖于大银行。但是,银行没有优先考虑公共福利,而是专注于自己的底线,因此没有执行刺激计划的真正意图。例如,在公私伙伴关系方面,尽管小企业管理局被要求以先到先得的方式处理贷款,但银行却没有这样做。在没有这一要求的情况下,银行优先考虑更富有、更大的客户。因此,妇女和少数族裔拥有的小企业以及周边地区的小企业发现自己在获得贷款方面面临更多障碍。同样,在直接向消费者发放救济支票方面,银行将自己的利益置于客户的利益之上。例如,为了收回银行债务,银行冻结并扣押了存入消费者账户的政府救济支票中的资金,然后才有需要的消费者收到这些资金。因此,各个州的司法部长和法院不得不介入,并强制要求允许消费者按照政府的意图使用这些资金——用于食物和住所等必需品。我们可以采用几种技巧来修改银行的道德行为和文化规范。本文讨论了这些方法,其中包括(i)自上而下的监管方法;(ii)创建市场主导的举措;(iii)司法系统提供的解释性修复;(iv)公众批评和羞辱半监管方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信