Christopher A Cotropia, Jonathan S Masur, David L Schwartz
Abstract We study whether a seller’s gender impacts the bargained-for price in a product market, specifically baseball cards. We isolate the seller’s gender using an online transaction exposing the buyer to the seller’s gender via the seller’s hand and name. In both a field experiment, in which we actually sell cards on eBay, and a laboratory experiment, in which we conduct surveys via Amazon Mechanical Turk, we find, contrary to current literature, that women sell baseball cards for a higher price and greater profit compared to men. The observed discrimination appears to be both statistical and taste based. These findings contribute to the law and economics literature on discrimination and have ramifications for the economic opportunities of women in the retail marketplace and for the law of gender discrimination. (JEL J16, C91, C93, K31, K38)
{"title":"Gender Discrimination in Online Markets","authors":"Christopher A Cotropia, Jonathan S Masur, David L Schwartz","doi":"10.1093/aler/ahad008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahad008","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We study whether a seller’s gender impacts the bargained-for price in a product market, specifically baseball cards. We isolate the seller’s gender using an online transaction exposing the buyer to the seller’s gender via the seller’s hand and name. In both a field experiment, in which we actually sell cards on eBay, and a laboratory experiment, in which we conduct surveys via Amazon Mechanical Turk, we find, contrary to current literature, that women sell baseball cards for a higher price and greater profit compared to men. The observed discrimination appears to be both statistical and taste based. These findings contribute to the law and economics literature on discrimination and have ramifications for the economic opportunities of women in the retail marketplace and for the law of gender discrimination. (JEL J16, C91, C93, K31, K38)","PeriodicalId":46133,"journal":{"name":"American Law and Economics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135734045","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines competing economic theories of crime and punishment within a common analytical framework. The theories—due to Becker (1968. “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach,” 76 Journal of Political Economy 169–217), Posner (1985. “An Economic Theory of the Criminal Law” 85 Columbia Law Review 1193–231), and Adelstein (1981. “Institutional Structure and Evolution in the Criminal Process,” 76 Northwestern University Law Review 1–99)—share the view of crime as exchange, but differ in the interpretation of punishment; specifically, is it aimed at pricing crime, preventing crime, or achieving corrective justice? The hybrid model used to address this question, originally developed by Hylton (2005. “The Theory of Penalties and the Economics of Criminal Law,” 1 Review of Law and Economics 175–201), explicitly incorporates market exchange as an alternative to criminal exchange. The results show that the optimal enforcement policy generally involves maximal punishment (however that is defined), but the optimal probability of apprehension can be high or low, depending on the parameters of the model. In the latter case, crime may completely crowd out the market. (JEL K14, K42)
本文在一个共同的分析框架内考察了犯罪和惩罚的相互竞争的经济理论。这些理论是由贝克尔(1968)提出的。《罪与罚:一种经济学方法》，《政治经济学杂志》76期，169-217页，波斯纳(1985)。《刑法的经济理论》，《哥伦比亚法律评论》第85期，第193 - 231页)，阿德尔斯坦(1981)。《刑事程序中的制度结构与演变》，76号《西北大学法律评论》第1期- 99页)——双方都将犯罪视为交换，但在对惩罚的解释上存在分歧;具体来说，它的目的是为犯罪定价，预防犯罪，还是实现纠正正义?用于解决这个问题的混合模型，最初由Hylton(2005)开发。《刑罚理论与刑法经济学》(1 Review of Law and Economics, 175-201)明确地将市场交换作为刑事交换的替代方案。结果表明，最优执行策略通常涉及最大惩罚(无论如何定义)，但逮捕的最优概率可能高或低，这取决于模型的参数。在后一种情况下，犯罪可能会完全挤出市场。(凝胶k14, k42)
{"title":"On Economic Theories of Criminal Punishment: Pricing, Prevention, or Proportionality?","authors":"Thomas J. Miceli","doi":"10.1093/aler/ahad003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahad003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article examines competing economic theories of crime and punishment within a common analytical framework. The theories—due to Becker (1968. “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach,” 76 Journal of Political Economy 169–217), Posner (1985. “An Economic Theory of the Criminal Law” 85 Columbia Law Review 1193–231), and Adelstein (1981. “Institutional Structure and Evolution in the Criminal Process,” 76 Northwestern University Law Review 1–99)—share the view of crime as exchange, but differ in the interpretation of punishment; specifically, is it aimed at pricing crime, preventing crime, or achieving corrective justice? The hybrid model used to address this question, originally developed by Hylton (2005. “The Theory of Penalties and the Economics of Criminal Law,” 1 Review of Law and Economics 175–201), explicitly incorporates market exchange as an alternative to criminal exchange. The results show that the optimal enforcement policy generally involves maximal punishment (however that is defined), but the optimal probability of apprehension can be high or low, depending on the parameters of the model. In the latter case, crime may completely crowd out the market. (JEL K14, K42)","PeriodicalId":46133,"journal":{"name":"American Law and Economics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42126871","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Many important provisions of US securities law—most notably, crucial elements of the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) legislation enacted in 2002—apply only to firms that have a public float of at least $75 million. Public float (i.e., the market value of shares held by non-insiders) is not comprehensively reported in standard databases, so I “scrape” public float data from firms’ 10-K filings for an extensive sample of reporting entities over fiscal years 1993–2015. I use a bunching approach that compares the number of observations immediately below the $75 million threshold to a smooth counterfactual density. Prior to SOX (i.e., over 1993–2002), there is no detectable bunching. Following SOX (i.e., over 2003–15), there is statistically significant evidence of bunching. However, the magnitude of bunching is relatively modest. Moreover, bunching is concentrated in the early post-SOX years (2003–09) and is virtually absent in later years (2010–15). The magnitude of bunching is not a sufficient statistic for the compliance costs of securities regulation because the costs of managing public float are unobservable. Nonetheless, the results of the bunching analysis cast some doubt on widespread claims that the regulatory burdens of these securities law provisions are large.
{"title":"Estimating Firms’ Responses to Securities Regulation Using a Bunching Approach","authors":"Dhammika Dharmapala","doi":"10.1093/aler/ahac013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahac013","url":null,"abstract":"Many important provisions of US securities law—most notably, crucial elements of the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) legislation enacted in 2002—apply only to firms that have a public float of at least $75 million. Public float (i.e., the market value of shares held by non-insiders) is not comprehensively reported in standard databases, so I “scrape” public float data from firms’ 10-K filings for an extensive sample of reporting entities over fiscal years 1993–2015. I use a bunching approach that compares the number of observations immediately below the $75 million threshold to a smooth counterfactual density. Prior to SOX (i.e., over 1993–2002), there is no detectable bunching. Following SOX (i.e., over 2003–15), there is statistically significant evidence of bunching. However, the magnitude of bunching is relatively modest. Moreover, bunching is concentrated in the early post-SOX years (2003–09) and is virtually absent in later years (2010–15). The magnitude of bunching is not a sufficient statistic for the compliance costs of securities regulation because the costs of managing public float are unobservable. Nonetheless, the results of the bunching analysis cast some doubt on widespread claims that the regulatory burdens of these securities law provisions are large.","PeriodicalId":46133,"journal":{"name":"American Law and Economics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138528738","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article estimates the effects on recycling behavior of state recycling laws and deposit laws based on changes in household recycling before and after interstate moves. Estimates from a national panel dataset of 1,498 households who moved between states provide a quasi-experimental test otherwise not possible given long-term stability of such laws in any state. Compared to national average recycling rates, moves to states with deposits for beverage containers increased the number of material types recycled by 41%. More stringent recycling laws are also effective, but they have a smaller impact. Recycling laws boosted the number of materials recycled by 9%, with the largest effect being the 17% increase in the recycling rate for glass. Moves from states with deposit laws to states without such laws decreased the number of materials recycled by 13%. Shifts out of states with stringent laws only had statistically significant effects for plastic, which exhibited a 12% decrease after such a move.
{"title":"Quasi-Experimental Evidence on the Impact of State Recycling and Deposit Laws: Household Recycling Following Interstate Moves","authors":"W. Viscusi, Joel Huber, Jason Bell","doi":"10.1093/aler/ahac006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahac006","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article estimates the effects on recycling behavior of state recycling laws and deposit laws based on changes in household recycling before and after interstate moves. Estimates from a national panel dataset of 1,498 households who moved between states provide a quasi-experimental test otherwise not possible given long-term stability of such laws in any state. Compared to national average recycling rates, moves to states with deposits for beverage containers increased the number of material types recycled by 41%. More stringent recycling laws are also effective, but they have a smaller impact. Recycling laws boosted the number of materials recycled by 9%, with the largest effect being the 17% increase in the recycling rate for glass. Moves from states with deposit laws to states without such laws decreased the number of materials recycled by 13%. Shifts out of states with stringent laws only had statistically significant effects for plastic, which exhibited a 12% decrease after such a move.","PeriodicalId":46133,"journal":{"name":"American Law and Economics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46376579","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Litigation is costly because information is not free. Given that information is costly and perfect information prohibitively costly, courts will occasionally err. Finally, the fact that information is costly implies an unavoidable degree of informational asymmetry between disputants. This paper presents a model of the civil justice system that incorporates these features and probes its implications for compliance with the law, efficiency of law, accuracy in adjudication, trial outcome statistics, and the evolution of legal standards. The model’s claims are applied to and tested against the relevant empirical and legal literature.
{"title":"Information Costs and the Civil Justice System","authors":"Keith N Hylton","doi":"10.1093/aler/ahac009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahac009","url":null,"abstract":"Litigation is costly because information is not free. Given that information is costly and perfect information prohibitively costly, courts will occasionally err. Finally, the fact that information is costly implies an unavoidable degree of informational asymmetry between disputants. This paper presents a model of the civil justice system that incorporates these features and probes its implications for compliance with the law, efficiency of law, accuracy in adjudication, trial outcome statistics, and the evolution of legal standards. The model’s claims are applied to and tested against the relevant empirical and legal literature.","PeriodicalId":46133,"journal":{"name":"American Law and Economics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138528725","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Konstantinos Ioannidis, Theo Offerman, Randolph Sloof
The Verifiability Approach is a lie detection method based on the insight that truth-tellers provide precise details whereas liars sometimes remain vague to avoid being exposed. We provide a game-theoretic foundation for the strategic effect that underlies this approach. We consider a speaker who wants to be acquitted and an investigator who prefers to find out the truth. The investigator can verify the speaker’s statement at some cost; verification gets more reliable the more details are provided. If, after a falsified statement, the investigator convicts, an additional penalty is imposed. Constructing precise but false statements is assumed to be cognitively costly. We derive all equilibria and thereby the conditions under which the investigator can infer valuable information from the speaker’s statement at face value. If cognitive costs are not prohibitively high, these require that liars are deterred from making false precise statements if always verified. Strategic information revelation by the speaker and verification by the investigator then necessarily work in tandem in a partially pooling equilibrium. Improvements in reliability result in more valuable information via the statements per se, whereas larger lying costs or a harsher penalty do not once the deterrence condition for the existence of this equilibrium is met.
{"title":"Lie Detection: A Strategic Analysis of the Verifiability Approach","authors":"Konstantinos Ioannidis, Theo Offerman, Randolph Sloof","doi":"10.1093/aler/ahac005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahac005","url":null,"abstract":"The Verifiability Approach is a lie detection method based on the insight that truth-tellers provide precise details whereas liars sometimes remain vague to avoid being exposed. We provide a game-theoretic foundation for the strategic effect that underlies this approach. We consider a speaker who wants to be acquitted and an investigator who prefers to find out the truth. The investigator can verify the speaker’s statement at some cost; verification gets more reliable the more details are provided. If, after a falsified statement, the investigator convicts, an additional penalty is imposed. Constructing precise but false statements is assumed to be cognitively costly. We derive all equilibria and thereby the conditions under which the investigator can infer valuable information from the speaker’s statement at face value. If cognitive costs are not prohibitively high, these require that liars are deterred from making false precise statements if always verified. Strategic information revelation by the speaker and verification by the investigator then necessarily work in tandem in a partially pooling equilibrium. Improvements in reliability result in more valuable information via the statements per se, whereas larger lying costs or a harsher penalty do not once the deterrence condition for the existence of this equilibrium is met.","PeriodicalId":46133,"journal":{"name":"American Law and Economics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138528724","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"OUP accepted manuscript","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/aler/ahac003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahac003","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46133,"journal":{"name":"American Law and Economics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60721186","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"OUP accepted manuscript","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/aler/ahac001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahac001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46133,"journal":{"name":"American Law and Economics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60721445","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"OUP accepted manuscript","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/aler/ahac004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahac004","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46133,"journal":{"name":"American Law and Economics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60721386","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"OUP accepted manuscript","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/aler/ahac002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahac002","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46133,"journal":{"name":"American Law and Economics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60721548","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：