首页 > 最新文献

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies最新文献

英文 中文
The ESG Backlash and the Demand for ESG Mutual Funds ESG反弹和ESG共同基金需求
IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Pub Date : 2025-10-02 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70010
Quinn Curtis

The backlash to ESG investing is in full swing, with dozens of states enacting measures aimed at curtailing the consideration of environmental, social, and governance factors in their pension funds. Meanwhile, ESG mutual funds are experiencing net outflows after a period of lagging performance. Is this the end for ESG funds? This paper draws on the literature on mutual fund flows to study how the demand for ESG funds has changed over time and how that demand interacts with the political and legal backlash to ESG. It finds that ESG funds received significant positive flows, controlling for conventional predictors of fund flow, starting in 2017. This effect peaked in late 2019, much earlier than the publicly perceived decline of ESG. Abnormal investor preference for ESG funds disappeared in 2020, around the time of the Trump Department of Labor rule targeting ESG and then reappeared in 2021 before declining again. The excess demand for ESG was driven largely by institutional share classes, particularly pre-2021. While the positive effect of ESG branding on flows has disappeared, demand for ESG funds (controlling for past performance) has generally remained non-negative up to 2024. Most of the decline in excess demand for ESG funds predates the political backlash and state anti-ESG laws. Tests for a causal relationship between ESG fund flows and the political backlash, as measured by mentions of ESG in conservative media and state laws restricting ESG, show no statistical connection.

对ESG投资的抵制正如火如荼地进行,数十个州颁布了旨在减少其养老基金对环境、社会和治理因素考虑的措施。与此同时,ESG共同基金在经历了一段时间的滞后表现后,正经历净流出。这是ESG基金的末日吗?本文利用有关共同基金流动的文献,研究对ESG基金的需求如何随着时间的推移而变化,以及这种需求如何与对ESG的政治和法律反弹相互作用。研究发现,从2017年开始,ESG基金获得了显著的正流动,控制了传统的资金流动预测指标。这种影响在2019年底达到顶峰,比公众认为的ESG衰落要早得多。投资者对ESG基金的异常偏好在2020年特朗普劳工部出台针对ESG的规定前后消失,然后在2021年再次出现,然后再次下降。对ESG的过度需求主要是由机构股票类别推动的,尤其是在2021年之前。虽然ESG品牌对资金流动的积极影响已经消失,但到2024年,对ESG基金的需求(控制过去的业绩)总体上保持非负。ESG基金过剩需求的下降,大多发生在政治反弹和各州出台反ESG法律之前。对ESG资金流动与政治反弹之间因果关系的测试(通过保守媒体对ESG的提及和限制ESG的州法律来衡量)显示,没有统计上的联系。
{"title":"The ESG Backlash and the Demand for ESG Mutual Funds","authors":"Quinn Curtis","doi":"10.1111/jels.70010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70010","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The backlash to ESG investing is in full swing, with dozens of states enacting measures aimed at curtailing the consideration of environmental, social, and governance factors in their pension funds. Meanwhile, ESG mutual funds are experiencing net outflows after a period of lagging performance. Is this the end for ESG funds? This paper draws on the literature on mutual fund flows to study how the demand for ESG funds has changed over time and how that demand interacts with the political and legal backlash to ESG. It finds that ESG funds received significant positive flows, controlling for conventional predictors of fund flow, starting in 2017. This effect peaked in late 2019, much earlier than the publicly perceived decline of ESG. Abnormal investor preference for ESG funds disappeared in 2020, around the time of the Trump Department of Labor rule targeting ESG and then reappeared in 2021 before declining again. The excess demand for ESG was driven largely by institutional share classes, particularly pre-2021. While the positive effect of ESG branding on flows has disappeared, demand for ESG funds (controlling for past performance) has generally remained non-negative up to 2024. Most of the decline in excess demand for ESG funds predates the political backlash and state anti-ESG laws. Tests for a causal relationship between ESG fund flows and the political backlash, as measured by mentions of ESG in conservative media and state laws restricting ESG, show no statistical connection.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"22 4","pages":"690-706"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.70010","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145449792","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Network Analysis of Innovation in Legal Scholarship: Law & Economics, Law & Society, and Empirical Legal Studies 法学学术创新的网络分析:法学与经济学、法学与社会、实证法学研究
IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Pub Date : 2025-09-28 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70012
Jing Liu, David A. Hyman

Innovation in legal scholarship is a constant, but some innovations are more successful than others. We use descriptive and inferential network analysis to study the dissemination and adoption of empirical studies from three sub-fields—law and economics (L&E), law and society (L&S), and empirical legal studies (ELS)—to one another and to the traditional academic legal community. We find that L&E scholarship and L&S scholarship mostly do not overlap with one another in terms of the topics that are addressed (research frontiers) and the authorities that are cited (knowledge base). Even when topic choice overlaps, L&E scholarship and L&S scholarship cite different authorities, reflecting different fundamental principles and assumptions. In contrast, ELS covers topics that are specific to either JLE or LSR and co-cites landmark works from both sub-fields. By encompassing a diverse array of topics and methodologies, ELS effectively bridges and extends the boundaries of both L&E and L&S, which might have helped facilitate its dissemination to the traditional legal academic community. Our Exponential Random Graph Models further confirm these findings and suggest that ELS simultaneously draws from but also has something useful to offer to scholarship in other areas of the law. In an academic world where fields are dominated by hedgehogs (who know one big thing), ELS scholars are quintessential foxes (who know many things).

法律学术的创新是持续不断的,但有些创新比其他创新更成功。我们使用描述和推理网络分析来研究实证研究在三个子领域——法律与经济学(L&;E)、法律与社会(L&;S)和实证法律研究(ELS)——彼此之间以及在传统学术法律界的传播和采用。我们发现,L&;E奖学金和L&;S奖学金在涉及的主题(研究前沿)和引用的权威(知识库)方面大多不重叠。即使选题重叠,L&;E奖学金和L&;S奖学金引用不同的权威,反映不同的基本原则和假设。相比之下,ELS涵盖了特定于JLE或LSR的主题,并共同引用了这两个子领域的标志性作品。通过涵盖一系列不同的主题和方法,ELS有效地连接和扩展了法学和法学的边界,这可能有助于促进其在传统法律学术界的传播。我们的指数随机图模型进一步证实了这些发现,并表明ELS同时借鉴了法律其他领域的学术研究,但也有一些有用的东西可以提供。在一个学术领域被刺猬(只知道一件大事)统治的世界里,ELS的学者是典型的狐狸(知道很多事情)。
{"title":"Network Analysis of Innovation in Legal Scholarship: Law & Economics, Law & Society, and Empirical Legal Studies","authors":"Jing Liu,&nbsp;David A. Hyman","doi":"10.1111/jels.70012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70012","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Innovation in legal scholarship is a constant, but some innovations are more successful than others. We use descriptive and inferential network analysis to study the dissemination and adoption of empirical studies from three sub-fields—law and economics (L&amp;E), law and society (L&amp;S), and empirical legal studies (ELS)—to one another and to the traditional academic legal community. We find that L&amp;E scholarship and L&amp;S scholarship mostly do not overlap with one another in terms of the topics that are addressed (research frontiers) and the authorities that are cited (knowledge base). Even when topic choice overlaps, L&amp;E scholarship and L&amp;S scholarship cite different authorities, reflecting different fundamental principles and assumptions. In contrast, ELS covers topics that are specific to either JLE or LSR and co-cites landmark works from both sub-fields. By encompassing a diverse array of topics and methodologies, ELS effectively bridges and extends the boundaries of both L&amp;E and L&amp;S, which might have helped facilitate its dissemination to the traditional legal academic community. Our Exponential Random Graph Models further confirm these findings and suggest that ELS simultaneously draws from but also has something useful to offer to scholarship in other areas of the law. In an academic world where fields are dominated by hedgehogs (who know one big thing), ELS scholars are quintessential foxes (who know many things).</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"22 4","pages":"599-619"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145450083","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Gun Laws and Justifiable Homicides: Contrasting Impacts on Civilians and Police 枪支法和正当杀人:对平民和警察的对比影响
IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Pub Date : 2025-09-25 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70014
Ivan Ribeiro, Julio Trecenti, Nelson Coelho, Jessica Maruyama, Abhay Aneja, John Donohue

We examine the association between right-to-carry (RTC) and stand-your-ground (SYG) laws and justifiable homicides by civilians and police, and discuss public policy implications. In baseline fixed-effects models without interactions, RTC is associated with a 47% increase in civilian justifiable homicides. When an RTC � � � � � � × SYG interaction is included, SYG alone is associated with a 51.2% decrease (when RTC = 0), and the RTC main effect is a non-significant but sizable 29.7% increase (when SYG = 0). Their combination is associated with a 36.9% increase relative to states with neither policy, and the marginal effect of adopting RTC in SYG states is large, about 180%. By contrast, police justifiable homicides show no such interaction and are generally unaffected, with a limited exception in baseline large-city models (without interaction terms) where RTC is associated with a decrease. We conduct robustness checks using large-city samples, alternative data (Fatal Encounters), and a placebo–permutation test. Event-study estimates show no significant pre-trends for either law, only a positive estimate two years after RTC adoption at the state level for civilian homicides. Permutation-based inference does not consistently reach conventional significance thresholds. Overall, the results underscore the importance of analyzing police and civilian cases separately, accounting for policy interactions, and exercising caution regarding causal interpretations given data limitations and potential estimator bias.

我们研究了持枪权(RTC)和坚守阵地法(SYG)与平民和警察的正当杀人之间的关系,并讨论了公共政策的影响。在没有相互作用的基线固定效应模型中,RTC与平民正当杀人增加47%有关。当RTC × SYG相互作用包括在内时,SYG单独与51.2%的降低相关(当RTC = 0时),RTC主效应是不显著但相当大的29.7%的增加(当SYG = 0时)。与没有任何政策的州相比,这两项政策的结合增加了36.9%,而在SYG州采用RTC的边际效应很大,约为180%。相比之下,警察正当杀人没有表现出这种相互作用,通常不受影响,只有在基线大城市模型(没有相互作用项)中有一个有限的例外,其中RTC与减少有关。我们使用大城市样本、替代数据(致命遭遇)和安慰剂排列检验进行稳健性检查。事件研究估计表明,这两项法律都没有明显的前期趋势,只有在州一级采用RTC后两年才有一个积极的估计。基于排列的推理并不总是达到传统的显著性阈值。总体而言,结果强调了分别分析警察和民事案件的重要性,考虑到政策相互作用,并在考虑数据限制和潜在估计偏差的情况下对因果解释保持谨慎。
{"title":"Gun Laws and Justifiable Homicides: Contrasting Impacts on Civilians and Police","authors":"Ivan Ribeiro,&nbsp;Julio Trecenti,&nbsp;Nelson Coelho,&nbsp;Jessica Maruyama,&nbsp;Abhay Aneja,&nbsp;John Donohue","doi":"10.1111/jels.70014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70014","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We examine the association between right-to-carry (RTC) and stand-your-ground (SYG) laws and justifiable homicides by civilians and police, and discuss public policy implications. In baseline fixed-effects models without interactions, RTC is associated with a 47% increase in civilian justifiable homicides. When an RTC <span></span><math>\u0000 \u0000 <semantics>\u0000 \u0000 <mrow>\u0000 \u0000 <mo>×</mo>\u0000 </mrow>\u0000 </semantics>\u0000 </math> SYG interaction is included, SYG alone is associated with a 51.2% decrease (when RTC = 0), and the RTC main effect is a non-significant but sizable 29.7% increase (when SYG = 0). Their combination is associated with a 36.9% increase relative to states with neither policy, and the marginal effect of adopting RTC in SYG states is large, about 180%. By contrast, police justifiable homicides show no such interaction and are generally unaffected, with a limited exception in baseline large-city models (without interaction terms) where RTC is associated with a decrease. We conduct robustness checks using large-city samples, alternative data (Fatal Encounters), and a placebo–permutation test. Event-study estimates show no significant pre-trends for either law, only a positive estimate two years after RTC adoption at the state level for civilian homicides. Permutation-based inference does not consistently reach conventional significance thresholds. Overall, the results underscore the importance of analyzing police and civilian cases separately, accounting for policy interactions, and exercising caution regarding causal interpretations given data limitations and potential estimator bias.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"22 4","pages":"707-733"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145449812","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Foreword JELS 22.4 (December 2025) JELS 22.4(2025年12月)
IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Pub Date : 2025-09-17 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70015
Tonja Jacobi, Jonathan Remy Nash, Joanna Shepherd
{"title":"Foreword JELS 22.4 (December 2025)","authors":"Tonja Jacobi,&nbsp;Jonathan Remy Nash,&nbsp;Joanna Shepherd","doi":"10.1111/jels.70015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70015","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"22 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145449898","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
No Adjudication 没有裁定
IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Pub Date : 2025-09-16 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70007
Charlotte S. Alexander, Nathan Dahlberg, Alexandra D. Lahav, Peter Siegelman

Using the complete record of all federal civil docket sheets for cases filed in a two-year period, recently made available by the SCALES-OKN project, we find that most cases that enter the federal system—about 60%–68%—are resolved without any dispositive motion filed for consideration by a neutral arbiter (judge or magistrate) or a trial. Only 30%–40% include a filing of a dispositive motion (such as a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment) or, in the rare case, trial. An additional 8% exit the system, mostly by remand or transfer. The majority of cases resolved at the Complaint or Answer stage end quickly (often within 90 days) and with few docket entries (often fewer than 12). While there is heterogeneity in adjudication rates across case types, the pattern of non-adjudication is widespread, and aggregate results are not driven by outliers. We find considerable heterogeneity in the level of non-adjudication among individual judges, underscoring the importance of judicial discretion to case processing. Further study of the consequences of the lack of dispositive motion practice in most federal cases for the functioning of the legal system and for the larger society is warranted.

利用scale - okn项目最近提供的两年内所有联邦民事案件的完整记录,我们发现,大多数进入联邦系统的案件——约60% - 68%——在没有提交任何由中立仲裁者(法官或地方法官)审议或审判的决定动议的情况下得到解决。只有30%-40%的文件包含了决定动议(如撤销动议或即决判决动议),或者在极少数情况下包含了审判。另有8%的人退出该体系,主要是通过还押或转移。大多数在投诉或答复阶段解决的案件结束得很快(通常在90天内),而且案件记录很少(通常少于12条)。虽然不同类型案件的裁决率存在异质性,但不裁决的模式是普遍存在的,总体结果不受异常值的影响。我们发现,在个别法官的非裁决水平相当大的异质性,强调司法自由裁量权对案件处理的重要性。有必要进一步研究在大多数联邦案件中缺乏决定动议实践的后果,以促进法律制度的运作和更大的社会。
{"title":"No Adjudication","authors":"Charlotte S. Alexander,&nbsp;Nathan Dahlberg,&nbsp;Alexandra D. Lahav,&nbsp;Peter Siegelman","doi":"10.1111/jels.70007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70007","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Using the complete record of all federal civil docket sheets for cases filed in a two-year period, recently made available by the SCALES-OKN project, we find that most cases that enter the federal system—about 60%–68%—are resolved without any dispositive motion filed for consideration by a neutral arbiter (judge or magistrate) or a trial. Only 30%–40% include a filing of a dispositive motion (such as a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment) or, in the rare case, trial. An additional 8% exit the system, mostly by remand or transfer. The majority of cases resolved at the Complaint or Answer stage end quickly (often within 90 days) and with few docket entries (often fewer than 12). While there is heterogeneity in adjudication rates across case types, the pattern of non-adjudication is widespread, and aggregate results are not driven by outliers. We find considerable heterogeneity in the level of non-adjudication among individual judges, underscoring the importance of judicial discretion to case processing. Further study of the consequences of the lack of dispositive motion practice in most federal cases for the functioning of the legal system and for the larger society is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"22 4","pages":"544-567"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.70007","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145450062","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Imputing Proxy Advisor Recommendations 估算代理顾问的建议
IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Pub Date : 2025-09-15 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70006
Jonathon Zytnick

Proxy advisor recommendations play a central role in research on shareholder voting and corporate governance, yet they have become largely unavailable to academics. I develop a method to impute benchmark recommendations from Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis using publicly available institutional voting data and estimated investor “follow rates”—the investor's likelihood of voting in line with each advisor. The method applies Bayes' theorem to infer recommendations from observed votes and iteratively updates both follow rates and imputations over successive rounds. To improve performance on contested proposals and avoid systematic bias, I estimate follow rates that vary by context—such as whether management and the other advisor agree with the recommendation. Validation against actual recommendations shows high accuracy: 96.4% of ISS recommendations imputed with 99.6% accuracy and 90.8% of Glass Lewis recommendations with 99.0% accuracy. Coverage improves substantially over prior approaches, especially for hard-to-classify proposals. I provide the full dataset of imputed recommendations as an Online Appendix for academic use.

代理顾问的建议在股东投票和公司治理的研究中发挥着核心作用,但学术界在很大程度上无法获得这些建议。我开发了一种方法,利用公开的机构投票数据和估计的投资者“跟随率”(投资者与每个顾问一致投票的可能性),来推算机构股东服务公司(ISS)和Glass Lewis的基准建议。该方法应用贝叶斯定理从观察到的投票中推断推荐,并在连续几轮中迭代更新跟随率和估算值。为了提高有争议提案的绩效并避免系统性偏见,我估计了随上下文而变化的跟随率——例如管理层和其他顾问是否同意建议。对实际推荐的验证显示出很高的准确率:ISS推荐的96.4%的输入准确率为99.6%,Glass Lewis推荐的90.8%的输入准确率为99.0%。覆盖范围大大改善了以前的方法,特别是对于难以分类的提案。我提供了完整的估算推荐数据集作为学术使用的在线附录。
{"title":"Imputing Proxy Advisor Recommendations","authors":"Jonathon Zytnick","doi":"10.1111/jels.70006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70006","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Proxy advisor recommendations play a central role in research on shareholder voting and corporate governance, yet they have become largely unavailable to academics. I develop a method to impute benchmark recommendations from Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis using publicly available institutional voting data and estimated investor “follow rates”—the investor's likelihood of voting in line with each advisor. The method applies Bayes' theorem to infer recommendations from observed votes and iteratively updates both follow rates and imputations over successive rounds. To improve performance on contested proposals and avoid systematic bias, I estimate follow rates that vary by context—such as whether management and the other advisor agree with the recommendation. Validation against actual recommendations shows high accuracy: 96.4% of ISS recommendations imputed with 99.6% accuracy and 90.8% of Glass Lewis recommendations with 99.0% accuracy. Coverage improves substantially over prior approaches, especially for hard-to-classify proposals. I provide the full dataset of imputed recommendations as an Online Appendix for academic use.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"22 4","pages":"525-543"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.70006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145449841","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
How Binding Is Administrative Guidance? An Empirical Study of Guidance, Rules, and the Courts Telling Them Apart 行政指导的约束力有多大?指导、规则和法院区分的实证研究
IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Pub Date : 2025-09-15 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70009
Amit Haim

Guidance documents are a main pillar of the modern administrative state. While federal agencies issue thousands of rules every year through notice-and-comment rulemaking, they issue even more guidance documents in various forms. There is, however, an ongoing and fierce dispute over agencies' ability to create binding obligations through guidance without the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures stipulated by the Administrative Procedure Act. The binding norm doctrine purports to prevent agencies from creating binding obligations through guidance, and often focuses on documents' choice of wording. But to what extent do guidance documents use binding language, and how do courts understand them? Despite the widespread interest in these questions, however, there has been a surprising lack of empirical studies tackling them. This article begins to bridge this gap and presents an analysis based on a novel dataset compiled from an online database of agency guidance, which encompasses nearly 70,000 documents issued by three key federal agencies from 1970 to 2022. Using computational text analysis, it investigates the language of guidance documents to assess their potential bindingness. It identifies specific linguistic cues that courts have used to interpret documents as binding or non-binding and applies these criteria across the dataset. The findings indicate a significant rise in the quantity and the assertiveness of language in guidance documents over the decades and show their near parity with legislative rules in terms of their binding effect, suggesting that guidance has indeed become a main bulwark of administrative policymaking. Moreover, the analysis explores judicial reviews of guidance documents, finding no substantial differences between documents that were set aside as too binding and others that were upheld, suggesting that the application of the binding norm doctrine fails to create a systematic and consistent framework for administrative agencies and regulated entities. In response to these findings, the article proposes a shift from the current focus on the close textual reading of documents to a procedural label test, which assesses only whether a rule has undergone the required procedural steps. This approach aims to simplify the legal assessment of guidance documents and provide a more stable foundation for administrative action.

指导性文件是现代行政国家的重要支柱。虽然联邦机构每年通过通知和评论规则制定发布数千条规则,但它们以各种形式发布的指导文件更多。然而,对于行政机关是否有能力在没有《行政程序法》规定的通知和评论规则制定程序的情况下,通过指导制定具有约束力的义务,存在着持续而激烈的争议。具有约束力的规范原则旨在防止机构通过指导产生具有约束力的义务,并经常侧重于文件措辞的选择。但指导性文件在多大程度上使用了约束性语言,法院又是如何理解它们的呢?然而,尽管这些问题引起了广泛的兴趣,但令人惊讶的是,缺乏解决这些问题的实证研究。本文开始弥合这一差距,并基于一个从机构指导在线数据库编制的新数据集进行分析,该数据集包含1970年至2022年三个主要联邦机构发布的近70,000份文件。使用计算文本分析,它调查指导文件的语言,以评估其潜在的绑定。它确定了法院用来将文件解释为具有约束力或不具有约束力的特定语言线索,并在整个数据集中应用这些标准。调查结果表明,几十年来指导性文件的数量和措辞都有了显著增加,并表明它们在约束力方面几乎与立法规则相当,这表明指导性文件确实已成为行政决策的主要堡垒。此外,本分析探讨了对指导性文件的司法审查,发现被认为约束性太强的文件与被支持的文件之间没有实质性差异,这表明约束性规范原则的适用未能为行政机构和受管制实体创造一个系统和一致的框架。针对这些发现,本文建议将目前的重点从对文件的仔细文本阅读转移到程序标签测试,该测试仅评估规则是否经历了所需的程序步骤。这种做法旨在简化指导性文件的法律评估,为行政行动提供更稳定的基础。
{"title":"How Binding Is Administrative Guidance? An Empirical Study of Guidance, Rules, and the Courts Telling Them Apart","authors":"Amit Haim","doi":"10.1111/jels.70009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70009","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Guidance documents are a main pillar of the modern administrative state. While federal agencies issue thousands of rules every year through notice-and-comment rulemaking, they issue even more guidance documents in various forms. There is, however, an ongoing and fierce dispute over agencies' ability to create binding obligations through guidance without the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures stipulated by the Administrative Procedure Act. The binding norm doctrine purports to prevent agencies from creating binding obligations through guidance, and often focuses on documents' choice of wording. But to what extent do guidance documents use binding language, and how do courts understand them? Despite the widespread interest in these questions, however, there has been a surprising lack of empirical studies tackling them. This article begins to bridge this gap and presents an analysis based on a novel dataset compiled from an online database of agency guidance, which encompasses nearly 70,000 documents issued by three key federal agencies from 1970 to 2022. Using computational text analysis, it investigates the language of guidance documents to assess their potential bindingness. It identifies specific linguistic cues that courts have used to interpret documents as binding or non-binding and applies these criteria across the dataset. The findings indicate a significant rise in the quantity and the assertiveness of language in guidance documents over the decades and show their near parity with legislative rules in terms of their binding effect, suggesting that guidance has indeed become a main bulwark of administrative policymaking. Moreover, the analysis explores judicial reviews of guidance documents, finding no substantial differences between documents that were set aside as too binding and others that were upheld, suggesting that the application of the binding norm doctrine fails to create a systematic and consistent framework for administrative agencies and regulated entities. In response to these findings, the article proposes a shift from the current focus on the close textual reading of documents to a procedural label test, which assesses only whether a rule has undergone the required procedural steps. This approach aims to simplify the legal assessment of guidance documents and provide a more stable foundation for administrative action.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"22 4","pages":"655-689"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.70009","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145449842","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Government Venture Capital and Entrepreneurship: Evidence From China 政府风险投资与企业家精神:来自中国的证据
IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Pub Date : 2025-09-14 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70011
Isabelle Zhang

Government venture capital funds (GVCs) are a global phenomenon. GVCs are central players in China's VC market, now the second largest globally. While existing literature often depicts China's GVCs as a successful public effort to promote entrepreneurship, this paper presents an alternative view. It explores the effect of city-level GVC programs on entrepreneurship, as proxied by the formation of new businesses. Using a hand-collected 20-year dataset covering GVC program adoption, early-stage investments, and new firm formation in 280 prefectural cities and employing difference-in-differences and weighted stacked event study methods, I find that Chinese GVCs are associated with a decrease in overall new firm formation. Interview-based evidence and a triple-differences analysis by industrial sector suggest that this result is driven by stringent investment restrictions imposed by GVC programs, which absorb private sector capital into GVC funds targeting specific industries, thereby discouraging new firm formation in non-policy-supported sectors. These findings offer a cautionary note to global policymakers regarding the complexities of public finance strategies aimed at boosting entrepreneurship.

政府风险投资基金(GVCs)是一个全球性的现象。全球风险投资公司是中国风险投资市场的核心参与者,中国目前是全球第二大风险投资市场。它探讨了城市层面的全球价值链项目对创业的影响,以新企业的形成为代表。我使用手工收集的20年数据集,涵盖了280个地级市的全球价值链项目采用、早期投资和新企业形成,并采用差异中的差异和加权堆叠事件研究方法,发现中国的全球价值链与总体新企业形成的减少有关。基于访谈的证据和行业部门的三重差异分析表明,这一结果是由全球价值链项目施加的严格投资限制推动的,这些项目将私营部门资本吸收到针对特定行业的全球价值链基金中,从而阻碍了非政策支持行业的新企业形成。这些发现为全球政策制定者提供了一个关于旨在促进创业的公共财政战略复杂性的警示。
{"title":"Government Venture Capital and Entrepreneurship: Evidence From China","authors":"Isabelle Zhang","doi":"10.1111/jels.70011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70011","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Government venture capital funds (GVCs) are a global phenomenon. GVCs are central players in China's VC market, now the second largest globally. While existing literature often depicts China's GVCs as a successful public effort to promote entrepreneurship, this paper presents an alternative view. It explores the effect of city-level GVC programs on entrepreneurship, as proxied by the formation of new businesses. Using a hand-collected 20-year dataset covering GVC program adoption, early-stage investments, and new firm formation in 280 prefectural cities and employing difference-in-differences and weighted stacked event study methods, I find that Chinese GVCs are associated with a decrease in overall new firm formation. Interview-based evidence and a triple-differences analysis by industrial sector suggest that this result is driven by stringent investment restrictions imposed by GVC programs, which absorb private sector capital into GVC funds targeting specific industries, thereby discouraging new firm formation in non-policy-supported sectors. These findings offer a cautionary note to global policymakers regarding the complexities of public finance strategies aimed at boosting entrepreneurship.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"22 4","pages":"568-598"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.70011","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145449896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Measuring the Value of Trademark Distinctiveness: Evidence From the Market for Bordeaux Wine 商标显著性价值的衡量:来自波尔多葡萄酒市场的证据
IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Pub Date : 2025-09-14 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70002
Christopher Buccafusco, Jonathan S. Masur, Ryan Whalen

The market value of distinctive trademarks is a fundamental assumption of both trademark law and marketing theory. However, there is little empirical evidence underlying this assumption. We examine the relationship between brand dissimilarity and market prices in the context of the Bordeaux wine market. Using a unique dataset covering thousands of wines and their associated prices and professional ratings, we find that brand distinctiveness is related to higher wine prices. We further show that this relationship persists across the wine quality spectrum, with both lower quality and higher quality wines benefiting from dissimilar marks. Finally, we show that while there is a dissimilarity price premium for lower quality wines, producers who invest in higher quality wines are rewarded with an even greater premium for dissimilar names in absolute dollar terms.

显著性商标的市场价值是商标法和市场营销理论的一个基本假设。然而,几乎没有经验证据支持这一假设。我们研究了波尔多葡萄酒市场背景下品牌差异性和市场价格之间的关系。通过使用包含数千种葡萄酒及其相关价格和专业评级的独特数据集,我们发现品牌独特性与较高的葡萄酒价格相关。我们进一步表明,这种关系在葡萄酒质量谱中持续存在,低质量和高质量的葡萄酒都受益于不同的标记。最后,我们表明,虽然低质量的葡萄酒有不同的价格溢价,但以绝对美元计算,投资于高质量葡萄酒的生产商在不同名称的葡萄酒上获得了更大的溢价。
{"title":"Measuring the Value of Trademark Distinctiveness: Evidence From the Market for Bordeaux Wine","authors":"Christopher Buccafusco,&nbsp;Jonathan S. Masur,&nbsp;Ryan Whalen","doi":"10.1111/jels.70002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70002","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The market value of distinctive trademarks is a fundamental assumption of both trademark law and marketing theory. However, there is little empirical evidence underlying this assumption. We examine the relationship between brand dissimilarity and market prices in the context of the Bordeaux wine market. Using a unique dataset covering thousands of wines and their associated prices and professional ratings, we find that brand distinctiveness is related to higher wine prices. We further show that this relationship persists across the wine quality spectrum, with both lower quality and higher quality wines benefiting from dissimilar marks. Finally, we show that while there is a dissimilarity price premium for lower quality wines, producers who invest in higher quality wines are rewarded with an even greater premium for dissimilar names in absolute dollar terms.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"22 4","pages":"403-413"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.70002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145450004","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Normative Ambiguity, Social Norms, and the Expressive Power of Law 规范歧义、社会规范与法律的表达力
IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Pub Date : 2025-09-11 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70005
Adi Leibovitch, Doron Teichman

Legal scholars have long debated whether law, through its expressive power, can influence prevailing social norms. Empirical studies inspired by this debate have focused on establishing the existence of an expressive power. However, this dichotomous perspective overlooks the nuances of the theoretical discourse regarding the conditions under which law, independent of any enforcement, can wield greater or lesser impact on social norms. This article employs a regression discontinuity design to examine the expressive power of the law in shaping social norms and measure its sensitivity to contextual factors. Using a preregistered incentivized experimental survey (N = 2913), we demonstrate that: (1) law, qua law, can indeed influence perceived social norms; and (2) this influence of the law is moderated by the normative clarity of the scenario. The law has the greatest impact on perceived norms in ambiguous situations; when additional normatively relevant information is provided, the expressive power of the law diminishes.

法律学者长期以来一直在争论法律是否可以通过其表达能力影响主流社会规范。受这场辩论启发的实证研究集中在确定表达能力的存在。然而,这种两分法的观点忽视了理论论述的细微差别,即在何种条件下,独立于任何执法的法律可以对社会规范产生或大或小的影响。本文采用回归不连续设计来检验法律在塑造社会规范方面的表达能力,并衡量其对语境因素的敏感性。采用预先注册的激励实验调查(N = 2913),我们证明:(1)法律,即法律,确实可以影响感知的社会规范;(2)法律的这种影响被规范的明确性所缓和。在模棱两可的情况下,法律对感知规范的影响最大;当提供了额外的规范性相关信息时,法律的表达力就减弱了。
{"title":"Normative Ambiguity, Social Norms, and the Expressive Power of Law","authors":"Adi Leibovitch,&nbsp;Doron Teichman","doi":"10.1111/jels.70005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70005","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Legal scholars have long debated whether law, through its expressive power, can influence prevailing social norms. Empirical studies inspired by this debate have focused on establishing the existence of an expressive power. However, this dichotomous perspective overlooks the nuances of the theoretical discourse regarding the conditions under which law, independent of any enforcement, can wield greater or lesser impact on social norms. This article employs a regression discontinuity design to examine the expressive power of the law in shaping social norms and measure its sensitivity to contextual factors. Using a preregistered incentivized experimental survey (N = 2913), we demonstrate that: (1) law, qua law, can indeed influence perceived social norms; and (2) this influence of the law is moderated by the normative clarity of the scenario. The law has the greatest impact on perceived norms in ambiguous situations; when additional normatively relevant information is provided, the expressive power of the law diminishes.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"22 4","pages":"475-501"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.70005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145449801","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1