Regulation and the Management of Expectations - Rating Agencies Revisited

In the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, scholars have begun to revise their conceptions of how market participants interact. While the traditional “rationalist optic” posits market participants who are able to process decisionrelevant information and thereby transform uncertainty into quantifiable risks, the increasingly popular “sociological optic” stresses the role of uncertainty in expectation formation and social conventions for creating confidence in markets. Applications of the sociological optic to concrete regulatory problems are still limited. By subjecting both optics to the same regulatory problem—the role of credit rating agencies (CRAs) and their ratings in capital markets—this paper provides insights into whether the sociological optic offers advice to tackle concrete regulatory problems and discusses the potential of the sociological optic in complementing the rationalist optic. The empirical application suggests that the sociological optic is not only able to improve our understanding of the role of CRAs and their ratings, but also to provide solutions complementary to those posited by the rationalist optic.

Body image rating scales to assess obesity

Obesity prevalence in the U.S. has increased during the last three decades with major impact on public health. Screening for obesity in a population with unknown weight status can be time- and resource-consuming, but the information is valuable for prioritizing and allocating scarce resources. The challenge remains to properly assess obesity with the available methods. Body Image Rating Scales (BIRS) have initially been developed to assess body image disturbances, but also seem useful as an alternative method in assessing obesity prevalence. Several different BIRS exists. In this project I reviewed the literature that exists regarding the use of BIRS, and its advantages and limitations for the assessment of obesity status with regards to BMI. The result yielded nine publications that examined eight different scales and their correlation with BMI, ranging from r=.59 for self-reported BMI to r=.94 for measured BMI. One concern is the lack of standardization of this method to assess obesity, given the range of different scales. While many methods for obesity assessment are available, the simplicity, ease of use and cost-effectiveness of BIRS make it very appealing. BIRS remain a potentially attractive option to assess the weight status of a large population with minimal requirements in assets and time, especially in situations where measuring instruments are not available, or when height or weight could not be recalled.^