Work ethic and the legacies of political regimes

This article studies the cross-country differences in work ethic and claims that different political regimes transmitted different work ethics that still persist today. Using the World Values Survey and starting our political regime analysis in 1900, we find that Democratic regimes promote more effectively work relevance and competitiveness than Autocratic and Anocratic regimes, and that the political regime history of the country is more important than the present level of democracy. Moreover, we prove that this differences were transmitted through generations by parents, who optimally choose what work ethic to transmit taking into account their own values.

Home Banking

The object of this dissertation is focused on the study of the home banking service and how the allocation of losses due to computer fraud is processed in the scope of this service. When considering the questions raised by the allocation of losses associated with fraudulent operations, it is important to consider, mainly, the behaviour of the user of the home banking service. In our opinion, courts have been too demanding towards the user when judging his action in the use of this service. In this study, we have concluded that, when the user “falls” into a computer fraud scheme, he should not be liable for gross negligent behaviour, even if, due to the fraud, the user revealed all his access codes to a hacker on a page similar to that of his bank. In general, such facts will not be sufficient to qualify the user’s action as grossly negligent. Therefore, the user, under the terms of the Payment Services’ System, must bear the loss up to a maximum of €150, and the bank will face the remainder of the losses. However, if the user, victim of a fraudulent technique, ignored the safety warnings issued by the bank, one must consider, given the specific case, that he contributed to gross negligence in unauthorised payment transactions. Thus, the user must bear all the losses up to the moment when he notifies the bank about the unauthorised transactions. It is the bank’s responsibility to, given the specific case, adduce evidence of the client’s contribution to the identified losses.