IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v180y2022i2d10.1007_s10551-021-04882-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ethical Foundations of the Islamic Financial Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Saad Azmat

    (Lahore University of Management Sciences)

  • Maryam Subhan

    (Lahore University of Management Sciences)

Abstract

This paper examines the ethical foundations of the Islamic financial industry which is strongly criticized for its similarity with conventional finance. In this paper, we argue that this criticism is based on the consequentialist reasoning. The deontological considerations are largely ignored when the focus is on aggregate returns and associated product features. We build an economic model which allows us to examine the implementation of deontological rules in the Islamic financial products along with examining their consequences. We show that the market forces may cause the returns and the attributes of Islamic financial products to converge with conventional finance even though the industry may be adhering to the Islamic deontological rules. We build a model to show that there may exist ‘Epsilon States’ where the deontological rules are followed by the Islamic finance industry, but their impact is not significant. We argue that the source of these ‘Epsilon States’ could be either moral uncertainty or costly monitoring. The presence of these ‘Epsilon States’ enable Islamic financial institutions with weak ethical commitments to create financial products where the deontological rules are followed, but their impact remains insignificant.

Suggested Citation

  • Saad Azmat & Maryam Subhan, 2022. "Ethical Foundations of the Islamic Financial Industry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(2), pages 567-580, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:180:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s10551-021-04882-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-021-04882-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-021-04882-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-021-04882-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guth, Werner & Kliemt, Hartmut & Ockenfels, Axel, 2003. "Fairness versus efficiency: An experimental study of (mutual) gift giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(4), pages 465-475, April.
    2. Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 817-869.
    3. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    4. Peter A. Diamond, 1967. "Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparison of Utility: Comment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 75, pages 765-765.
    5. Alexander W. Cappelen & Knut Nygaard & Erik Ø. Sørensen & Bertil Tungodden, 2015. "Social Preferences in the Lab: A Comparison of Students and a Representative Population," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 117(4), pages 1306-1326, October.
    6. Khan, Salman & Azmat, Saad, 2020. "Debt externality in equity markets: Leveraged portfolios and Islamic indices," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 152-177.
    7. Azmat, Saad & Jalil, Muhammad Naiman & Skully, Michael & Brown, Kym, 2016. "Investor’s choice of Shariah compliant ‘replicas’ and original Islamic instruments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 132(S), pages 4-22.
    8. John C. Harsanyi, 1955. "Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 63, pages 309-309.
    9. Dirk Engelmann & Martin Strobel, 2004. "Inequality Aversion, Efficiency, and Maximin Preferences in Simple Distribution Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 857-869, September.
    10. Chong, Beng Soon & Liu, Ming-Hua, 2009. "Islamic banking: Interest-free or interest-based?," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 125-144, January.
    11. Hausman, Daniel M & McPherson, Michael S, 1993. "Taking Ethics Seriously: Economics and Contemporary Moral Philosophy," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 671-731, June.
    12. Saad Azmat & A. S. M. Sohel Azad & M. Ishaq Bhatti & Hamza Ghaffar, 2020. "Islamic Banking, Costly Religiosity, And Competition," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 43(2), pages 263-303, May.
    13. Irene Van Staveren, 2007. "Beyond Utilitarianism and Deontology: Ethics in Economics," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(1), pages 21-35.
    14. Khan, Feisal, 2010. "How 'Islamic' is Islamic Banking?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 805-820, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alexia Gaudeul, 2013. "Social preferences under uncertainty," Jena Economics Research Papers 2013-024, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    2. Daniel Müller & Sander Renes, 2021. "Fairness views and political preferences: evidence from a large and heterogeneous sample," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 679-711, May.
    3. Luciano Andreozzi & Matteo Ploner & Ivan Soraperra, 2013. "Justice among strangers. On altruism, inequality aversion and fairness," CEEL Working Papers 1304, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    4. Alexander W. Cappelen & James Konow & Erik ?. S?rensen & Bertil Tungodden, 2013. "Just Luck: An Experimental Study of Risk-Taking and Fairness," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(4), pages 1398-1413, June.
    5. Marcelo Bérgolo & Gabriel Burdín & Santiago Burone & Mauricio de Rosa & Matías Giaccobasso & Martín Leites, 2020. "Dissecting Inequality-Averse Preferences," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 20-19, Instituto de Economía - IECON.
    6. Daniel Müller & Sander Renes, 2017. "Fairness views and political preferences - Evidence from a large online experiment," Working Papers 2017-10, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    7. Asheim, Geir B. & Zuber, Stéphane, 2016. "Evaluating intergenerational risks," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 104-117.
    8. Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Müller, Daniel, 2020. "Social preferences and political attitudes: An online experiment on a large heterogeneous sample," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    9. Diaz, Lina & Houser, Daniel & Ifcher, John & Zarghamee, Homa, 2023. "Estimating social preferences using stated satisfaction: Novel support for inequity aversion," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    10. Gary E. Bolton & Axel Ockenfels, 2004. "The Behavioral Tradeoff between Efficiency and Equity when a Majority Rules," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2003-12, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    11. Lucy F. Ackert & Ann B. Gillette & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez & Mark Rider, 2007. "Voting on Tax Policy Design," Public Finance Review, , vol. 35(2), pages 263-284, March.
    12. Ingvild Almås & Alexander W. Cappelen & Bertil Tungodden, 2020. "Cutthroat Capitalism versus Cuddly Socialism: Are Americans More Meritocratic and Efficiency-Seeking than Scandinavians?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(5), pages 1753-1788.
    13. Kovarik, Jaromir, 2009. "Social Preferences - Literature Survey," IKERLANAK 2009-36, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico I.
    14. Asheim, Geir B. & Zuber, Stéphane, 2015. "Evaluating Intergenerational Risks: Probabillity Adjusted Rank-Discounted Utilitarianism," Memorandum 06/2015, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    15. Friedel Bolle & Yves Breitmoser & Jana Heimel & Claudia Vogel, 2012. "Multiple motives of pro-social behavior: evidence from the solidarity game," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(3), pages 303-321, March.
    16. Morgenstern, Albrecht, 2004. "Efficiency concerns and incentive provision--an experimental study," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 83(3), pages 335-341, June.
    17. Mitesh Kataria & Natalia Montinari, 2012. "Risk, Entitlements and Fairness Bias: Explaining Preferences for Redistribution in Multi-person Setting," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-061, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    18. Dinky Daruvala, 2009. "Would The Right Social Preference Model Please Stand Up!," Post-Print hal-00744366, HAL.
    19. Stefan Trautmann, 2010. "Individual fairness in Harsanyi’s utilitarianism: operationalizing all-inclusive utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(4), pages 405-415, April.
    20. Abhinash Borah, 2021. "Individual sense of justice and Harsanyi’s impartial observer," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(1), pages 167-199, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Islamic finance; Consequentialist ethics; Deontological rules;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • G28 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • Z12 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Religion

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:180:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s10551-021-04882-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.