Abstract
Traditionally, financial risk management is examined with cartesian and interpretivist frameworks. However, the emergence of complexity science provides a different perspective. Using a structured questionnaire completed by 120 Risk Managers, this paper pioneers a comparative analysis of cartesian and complexity science theoretical frameworks adoption in sixteen Zimbabwean banks, in unique settings of a developing country. Data are analysed with descriptive statistics. The paper finds that overally banks in Zimbabwe are adopting cartesian and complexity science theories regardless of bank size, in the same direction and trajectory. However, adoption of cartesian modeling is more comprehensive and deeper than complexity science. Furthermore, due to information asymmetries, there is diverging modeling priorities between the regulator and supervisor. The regulator places strategic thrust on Knightian risks modeling whereas banks prioritise ontological, ambiguous and Knightian uncertainty measurement. Finally, it is found that complexity science and cartesianism intersect on market discipline. From these findings, it is concluded that complexity science provides an additional dimension to quantitative risk management, hence an integration of these two perspectives is beneficial. This paper makes three contributions to knowledge. First, it adds valuable insights to theoretical perspectives on Quantitative Risk Management. Second, it provides empirical evidence on adoption of two theories from developing country perspective. Third, it offers recommendations to improve Quantitative Risk Management policy formulation and practice.