On Risk, Devices and Responsible Financial Innovation. An Interview with Yuval Millo

market_devices_coverYuval Millo has the position of Professor of Social Studies of Finance and Management Accounting at the School of Management of Leicester University. He is a leading contributor to the emerging field of Social Studies of finance (SSF), which develops a unified analytical framework that includes elements from accounting, financial economics and sociology and analyses dynamics in and around financial markets. SSF pays particular attention to the technological and organizational infrastructure that affect price formation. Using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, Yuval’s current research includes the emergence of electronic trading in financial exchanges (with Daniel Beunza and Juan-Pablo Pardo-Guerra, LSE), the evolution of accounting standards for testing the impairment of assets (with Andrea Mennicken, LSE) and the rise of the Social Return On Investment methodology (with Emily Barman, Boston University and Matt Hall, LSE).

Q1. You had been studying risk since the very beginning of your academic career. For example, as a mathematic-zed risk-evaluation culture in your important contribution to the study of the performativity of the CBOE and the Black Sholes model. Furthermore, you have studied risk at the core of your actual work within the dangers that involved a fully automated securities exchange. How can we approach risk, considering that is such a slippery concept? And then, how do practitioners of risk management could advance a more reliable way of deal, for example, with the problems that technology brings to the market exchanges?

A1. [3.33 mins.]

Q2. Your work with the concept of market devices, published at the Sociological Review, had been an inspiration to a large group of people that wants to study the problem of the performativity. Could you please tell us more about your actual research lines and how these are using the market device concept? And secondly, are market devices a useful concept to study the persistence of the actual economic crisis?

A2. [6.00 mins.] 

Q3. Checking the social network analysis approach that you and your co-authors adopted in your research about firm’s director compensations, I was wondering about the relation between Actor-Network theory and Social Network Analysis. How can we build up a methodological ‘bridge’ that allows us to make connections between these approaches to the study of social phenomena? Or how can we manage the practical problem of mix methodology that emerges if we use both approaches together?

A3. [5.46 mins.] 

Q4. Could you please tell us something more about the topics and the results that the Working Group on Responsible Innovation in Financehad been doing under the umbrella of the ‘Observatory for Responsible Innovation. What do you understand by a practical approach to responsible financial innovation?  Is there any way that those that are now studying finance, for example at this very same School of Management in Leicester, or those that are now practitioners embrace a more responsible path within their product innovation?

A4. [10.35 mins.] 

Juan Espinosa

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • By Feliz 2014 | Estudios de la Economía on January 6, 2014 at 11:21 pm

    […] y teoría de sistemas. Además muy buenas entrevistas (con D. Beunza, G. Eyal, T. Mitchell, Y. Millo, M. A. Garretón, C. Han, D. Stark, P. du Gay, P. Mirowski y P. Wagner). Hemos continuado la […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: