Skin in the game

A propósito de "Oliveira Martins: Gestores devem ser responsabilizados no âmbito dos swaps" e do comentário do João Pinto ontem:

"ainda no domingo passei pela IP4 (e depois pela estrada nacional, que vai dar a Amarante), na zona do Marão, e vi as obras do túnel do Marão que agora estão suspensas.
.
Não percebo a razão da construção do túnel e daqueles viadutos todos. Portugal é mesmo um país rico. Quando estiver construída a nova estrada (a do túnel), haverá três alternativas ao trânsito (IP4, nacional e nova estrada), numa estrada onde não há engarrafamentos nem condutores para as 3 vias.
.
Triste, muito triste..."

A leitura deste artigo "Skin in the Game as a Required Heuristic for Acting Under Uncertainty" de Constantine Sandis e Nassim Nicholas Taleb, onde se pode ler:

"The idea of skin in the game is crucial for the well-functioning of a complex world. In an opaque system there is, alas, an incentive for operators to hide risk: to benefit from the upside when things go well without ever paying for the downside when one's luck runs out. There is no possible risk management method that can replace skin in the game —particularly when informational opacity is compounded by informational asymmetry viz. the principal-agent problem that arises when those who gain the upside resulting from actions performed under some degree of uncertainty are not the same as those who incur the downside of those same acts.
...
First, consider policy makers and politicians. In a decentralized system, say municipalities, these people are typically kept in check by feelings of shame upon harming others with their mistakes. In a large centralized system, the sources of error are not so visible. Spreadsheets do not make people feel shame. The penalty of shame is a factor that counts in favour of governments (and businesses) that are small, local, personal, and decentralized versus ones that are large, national or multi-national, anonymous, and centralised. When the latter fail, everybody except the culprit ends up paying the cost, leading to national and international 'austerity'.
...
We believe Skin in the game is the heuristics of a safe and just society. Opposed to this is the unethical practice of taking all the praise and benefits of good fortune whilst disassociating oneself from the results of bad luck or miscalculation.
...
We are not only responsible for known characterizations of our actions and their effects but also for those that we ought to be aware of (even if we are not). Our ignorance does not always relieve us of responsibility for things we have done, because others can claim that, as rational beings we should have known what we were doing even if we did not. Such is the knowledge involved in putting other people's lives at risk with no skin (of our own) in the game."