Pub Date : 2024-07-22DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2024.106216
Nuno Q.M. Lopes, Maria C.A. Silva
This paper analyses the technical efficiency of first-instance courts and investigates the existence of scale and scope economies. To assess the technical efficiency of specialized and non-specialized court benches, we use Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). This study uses data from 2015 to 2021, encompassing every bench within the Portuguese first-instance courts, totalling 3249 observations.
Our findings reveal diseconomies of scale, with more than half of the benches experiencing increasing returns to scale, indicating that their performance would benefit from increased scale. The scale diseconomies varied by bench type: benches primarily handling civil cases and generic benches faced mostly increasing returns to scale. In contrast, those dealing predominantly with criminal cases experienced decreasing returns to scale.
Additionally, we observe diseconomies of scope, indicating that generic and non-specialized benches were less efficient than specialized ones. Overall, this paper provides empirical evidence supporting the notion that the specialization of benches enhances their efficiency.
{"title":"Scale and scope economies in first-instance courts: Portuguese specialized vs non-specialized courts","authors":"Nuno Q.M. Lopes, Maria C.A. Silva","doi":"10.1016/j.irle.2024.106216","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.irle.2024.106216","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper analyses the technical efficiency of first-instance courts and investigates the existence of scale and scope economies. To assess the technical efficiency of specialized and non-specialized court benches, we use Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). This study uses data from 2015 to 2021, encompassing every bench within the Portuguese first-instance courts, totalling 3249 observations.</p><p>Our findings reveal diseconomies of scale, with more than half of the benches experiencing increasing returns to scale, indicating that their performance would benefit from increased scale. The scale diseconomies varied by bench type: benches primarily handling civil cases and generic benches faced mostly increasing returns to scale. In contrast, those dealing predominantly with criminal cases experienced decreasing returns to scale.</p><p>Additionally, we observe diseconomies of scope, indicating that generic and non-specialized benches were less efficient than specialized ones. Overall, this paper provides empirical evidence supporting the notion that the specialization of benches enhances their efficiency.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47202,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Law and Economics","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 106216"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014481882400036X/pdfft?md5=9e622bd172e36f9bef31ede5bebaac52&pid=1-s2.0-S014481882400036X-main.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141959524","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-22DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2024.106215
Emanuela Carbonara , Philip A. Curry , Claire A. Hill , Francesco Parisi
This paper examines how governments can optimally audit to discourage tax avoidance. We assume that an accounting firm designs and promotes strategies for tax avoidance. This firm adapts the quality and diversity of these strategies in response to shifts in government policies. We investigate when it is more effective to approve some methods while cracking down on others, rather than targeting all tax-avoidance activities uniformly. We find that selectively enforcing against specific methods can be optimal. This approach not only reduces the quality but also limits the variety of tax avoidance activities in the market and positively impacts the government’s tax revenue collection. Our analysis provides practical insights, linking the costs of auditing with the interaction between enforcement, the quality of tax avoidance methods, and tax revenue outcomes.
{"title":"Institutional flexibility in tax law and enforcement","authors":"Emanuela Carbonara , Philip A. Curry , Claire A. Hill , Francesco Parisi","doi":"10.1016/j.irle.2024.106215","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.irle.2024.106215","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper examines how governments can optimally audit to discourage tax avoidance. We assume that an accounting firm designs and promotes strategies for tax avoidance. This firm adapts the quality and diversity of these strategies in response to shifts in government policies. We investigate when it is more effective to approve some methods while cracking down on others, rather than targeting all tax-avoidance activities uniformly. We find that selectively enforcing against specific methods can be optimal. This approach not only reduces the quality but also limits the variety of tax avoidance activities in the market and positively impacts the government’s tax revenue collection. Our analysis provides practical insights, linking the costs of auditing with the interaction between enforcement, the quality of tax avoidance methods, and tax revenue outcomes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47202,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Law and Economics","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 106215"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818824000358/pdfft?md5=5fb3f5a2241bc42558a23c711f35043a&pid=1-s2.0-S0144818824000358-main.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141959523","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-14DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2024.106213
Anna Kovács , Katharina Luckner , Anna Sekuła , Jarosław Kantorowicz
Strategic climate change litigation is a rising phenomenon that has attracted considerable academic interest. Still, limited understanding exists of the effects of strategic litigation cases outside the courtroom – more specifically, on whether strategic litigation can influence public attitudes on climate change policy. Based on the concept of legal cueing, we conduct a pre-registered vignette experiment with a quota-representative sample of UK citizens to study the impact of information on strategic climate change litigation on stated and revealed preferences for climate policy measures. We furthermore perform an exploratory analysis of participants’ demographic characteristics and their expressed sentiment towards a carbon tax. Overall, the experiment returns null results, suggesting no direct link between strategic climate litigation and policy attitudes in our experimental setup. We discuss how legal cues may affect attitudes in a more indirect and cumulative manner.
{"title":"Beyond courts: Does strategic litigation affect climate change policy support?","authors":"Anna Kovács , Katharina Luckner , Anna Sekuła , Jarosław Kantorowicz","doi":"10.1016/j.irle.2024.106213","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.irle.2024.106213","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Strategic climate change litigation is a rising phenomenon that has attracted considerable academic interest. Still, limited understanding exists of the effects of strategic litigation cases outside the courtroom – more specifically, on whether strategic litigation can influence public attitudes on climate change policy. Based on the concept of legal cueing, we conduct a pre-registered vignette experiment with a quota-representative sample of UK citizens to study the impact of information on strategic climate change litigation on stated and revealed preferences for climate policy measures. We furthermore perform an exploratory analysis of participants’ demographic characteristics and their expressed sentiment towards a carbon tax. Overall, the experiment returns null results, suggesting no direct link between strategic climate litigation and policy attitudes in our experimental setup. We discuss how legal cues may affect attitudes in a more indirect and cumulative manner.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47202,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Law and Economics","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 106213"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818824000334/pdfft?md5=46de5f94e6e62b2bad6ce349193a5436&pid=1-s2.0-S0144818824000334-main.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141703718","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-06DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2024.106212
Julio López-Laborda , Fernando Rodrigo , Eduardo Sanz-Arcega
This paper econometrically tests the possible existence of a War of Courts when the Spanish Constitutional Court (CC) decides on constitutional complaints (recursos de amparo), filed by citizens against the violation of a fundamental right or freedom by the Supreme Court. Exploiting a unique database comprising 404 amparo appeals rulings issued by the Spanish CC for the period 2015–2019, we have carried out various estimates whose results do not confirm the hypothesis of the existence of such a War of Courts, despite the fears expressed in the legal doctrine on this subject. On the contrary, the results suggest that the CC maintains a favourable attitude towards the Supreme Court, specifically when the ruling is issued by the Plenary of the CC. However, the estimates do not allow us to conclusively reject the existence of such a conflict between the CC and other bodies of the Judiciary besides the Supreme Court.
当西班牙宪法法院(CC)就公民针对最高法院侵犯基本权利或自由而提出的宪法申诉(recursos de amparo)做出裁决时,本文通过计量经济学方法检验了是否可能存在 "法院战争"。我们利用由西班牙宪法法院在 2015-2019 年期间发布的 404 项宪法权利保护上诉裁决组成的独特数据库,进行了各种估算,其结果并未证实存在这种 "法院之战 "的假设,尽管法律理论对此问题表示担忧。相反,估算结果表明,民法委员会对最高法院持支持态度,特别是在民法委员会全体会议做出裁决的情况下。然而,这些估计并不能让我们断然否定消委会与最高法院之外的其他司法机构之间存在这种冲突。
{"title":"No War of Courts in the protection of fundamental rights: The case of amparo appeals in Spain","authors":"Julio López-Laborda , Fernando Rodrigo , Eduardo Sanz-Arcega","doi":"10.1016/j.irle.2024.106212","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.irle.2024.106212","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper econometrically tests the possible existence of a War of Courts when the Spanish Constitutional Court (CC) decides on constitutional complaints (<em>recursos de amparo</em>), filed by citizens against the violation of a fundamental right or freedom by the Supreme Court. Exploiting a unique database comprising 404 <em>amparo</em> appeals rulings issued by the Spanish CC for the period 2015–2019, we have carried out various estimates whose results do not confirm the hypothesis of the existence of such a War of Courts, despite the fears expressed in the legal doctrine on this subject. On the contrary, the results suggest that the CC maintains a favourable attitude towards the Supreme Court, specifically when the ruling is issued by the Plenary of the CC. However, the estimates do not allow us to conclusively reject the existence of such a conflict between the CC and other bodies of the Judiciary besides the Supreme Court.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47202,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Law and Economics","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 106212"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818824000322/pdfft?md5=830fa974b5990b29aa5a1120cfdb18a7&pid=1-s2.0-S0144818824000322-main.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141637620","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-02DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2024.106210
Christian Helmers , Brian J. Love
We ask whether four of the most important U.S. patent system reforms of the last 20 years—elimination of presumptive injunctive relief for victorious patent enforcers in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006); creation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in the America Invents Act; restriction of software’s eligibility for patent protection in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); and limitation of patent enforcers’ choice of forum in TC Heartland, LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands, LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017)—had a measurable impact on innovation in the U.S. Specifically, we use a sample of publicly traded firms to construct firm-level measures of innovation and exposure to each reform and adopt a variety of difference-in-differences approaches that assesses how innovation-related activities changed post-reform at relatively exposed versus relatively unexposed firms. We find: a positive association between eBay and R&D spending by firms that were relatively more exposed to patent litigation prior to the Court’s decision; a positive association between the introduction of PTAB proceedings and R&D expenditures by firms that innovate in tech classes where PTAB has been most active; a positive association between Alice and R&D spending by software firms; and a positive association between TC Heartland and R&D spending by firms that thereafter could not be sued in the Eastern District of Texas, a court long associated with opportunistic forum shopping.
我们要问的是,过去 20 年中最重要的四项美国专利制度改革--在 eBay Inc.388 (2006);在《美国发明法案》中设立专利审判和上诉委员会 (PTAB);在 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)一案中限制软件的专利保护资格;在 TC Heartland, LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp.Brands, LLC, 137 S. Ct.具体而言,我们使用公开交易公司样本构建公司层面的创新和各项改革风险度量指标,并采用多种差分法评估相对受影响公司与相对未受影响公司在改革后的创新相关活动有何变化。我们发现:在法院做出裁决之前,相对更容易受到专利诉讼影响的公司在 eBay 和研发支出之间存在正相关;在 PTAB 最活跃的技术领域进行创新的公司在引入 PTAB 程序和研发支出之间存在正相关;软件公司在 Alice 和研发支出之间存在正相关;此后不能在德克萨斯州东区法院(长期以来与择机选择法院有关的法院)起诉的公司在 TC Heartland 和研发支出之间存在正相关。
{"title":"Patent law reform and innovation: An empirical assessment of the last 20 years","authors":"Christian Helmers , Brian J. Love","doi":"10.1016/j.irle.2024.106210","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2024.106210","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We ask whether four of the most important U.S. patent system reforms of the last 20 years—elimination of presumptive injunctive relief for victorious patent enforcers in <em>eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC</em>, 547 U.S. 388 (2006); creation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in the America Invents Act; restriction of software’s eligibility for patent protection in <em>Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l</em>, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); and limitation of patent enforcers’ choice of forum in <em>TC Heartland, LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands, LLC</em>, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017)—had a measurable impact on innovation in the U.S. Specifically, we use a sample of publicly traded firms to construct firm-level measures of innovation and exposure to each reform and adopt a variety of difference-in-differences approaches that assesses how innovation-related activities changed post-reform at relatively exposed versus relatively unexposed firms. We find: a positive association between <em>eBay</em> and R&D spending by firms that were relatively more exposed to patent litigation prior to the Court’s decision; a positive association between the introduction of PTAB proceedings and R&D expenditures by firms that innovate in tech classes where PTAB has been most active; a positive association between <em>Alice</em> and R&D spending by software firms; and a positive association between <em>TC Heartland</em> and R&D spending by firms that thereafter could not be sued in the Eastern District of Texas, a court long associated with opportunistic forum shopping.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47202,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Law and Economics","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 106210"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141594618","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}
Pub Date : 2024-06-28DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2024.106211
Marie Obidzinski , Yves Oytana
We characterize the socially optimal liability sharing rule in a situation where a manufacturer develops an artificial intelligence (AI) system that is then used by a human operator (or user). First, the manufacturer invests to increase the autonomy of the AI (i.e, the set of situations that the AI can handle without human intervention) and sets a selling price. The user then decides whether or not to buy the AI. Since the autonomy of the AI remains limited, the human operator must sometimes intervene even when the AI is in use. Our main assumptions relate to behavioral inattention. Behavioral inattention reduces the effectiveness of user intervention and increases the expected harm. Only some users are aware of their own attentional limits. Under the assumption that AI outperforms users, we show that policymakers may face a trade-off when choosing how to allocate liability between the manufacturer and the user. Indeed, the manufacturer may underinvest in the autonomy of the AI. If this is the case, the policymaker can incentivize the latter to invest more by increasing his share of liability. On the other hand, increasing the liability of the manufacturer may come at the cost of slowing down the diffusion of AI technology.
{"title":"Artificial intelligence, inattention and liability rules","authors":"Marie Obidzinski , Yves Oytana","doi":"10.1016/j.irle.2024.106211","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2024.106211","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We characterize the socially optimal liability sharing rule in a situation where a manufacturer develops an artificial intelligence (AI) system that is then used by a human operator (or user). First, the manufacturer invests to increase the autonomy of the AI (<em>i.e</em>, the set of situations that the AI can handle without human intervention) and sets a selling price. The user then decides whether or not to buy the AI. Since the autonomy of the AI remains limited, the human operator must sometimes intervene even when the AI is in use. Our main assumptions relate to behavioral inattention. Behavioral inattention reduces the effectiveness of user intervention and increases the expected harm. Only some users are aware of their own attentional limits. Under the assumption that AI outperforms users, we show that policymakers may face a trade-off when choosing how to allocate liability between the manufacturer and the user. Indeed, the manufacturer may underinvest in the autonomy of the AI. If this is the case, the policymaker can incentivize the latter to invest more by increasing his share of liability. On the other hand, increasing the liability of the manufacturer may come at the cost of slowing down the diffusion of AI technology.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47202,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Law and Economics","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 106211"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141605406","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}
Pub Date : 2024-06-11DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2024.106206
Eleanor Brown , Ian Ayres
This article focuses on two different systems of feeding enslaved people. In the first system, primarily associated with the cotton, tobacco, and rice plantations of antebellum South and the early sugar plantations of the British West Indies, the obligation to feed enslaved people was executed by the plantation. In contrast, under a second system known as provisioning associated with the later British West Indian colonies, the master allocated land to enslaved people on which they would grow their own food. Over time, this land was understood, in the wider community of both those enslaved and the planters, to be the “property” of the enslaved person. This article offers potential explanations both for why provisioning was adopted in the West Indies, and why provisioning did not take hold in southern U.S. plantations. Following Ronald Coase’s Nature of the Firm, we should expect to see provisioning when doing so economizes on transaction and agency costs. As it became more difficult to purchase imported food, plantations had to provide their own food. Provisioning sacrificed the plantations’ claims to surplus food, but in the West Indies such decentralized production could enhance incentives for enslaved people to produce their own food while economizing on the need for supervision.
本文重点介绍两种不同的奴役者供餐制度。第一种制度主要与前贝鲁姆时期南方的棉花、烟草和稻米种植园以及英属西印度群岛早期的蔗糖种植园有关,为奴隶提供食物的义务由种植园承担。与此相反,在与后来的英属西印度群岛殖民地有关的第二种被称为 "供给 "的制度下,主人将土地分配给奴隶,让他们自己种植粮食。随着时间的推移,在更广泛的被奴役者和种植园主的社区中,这块土地被理解为被奴役者的 "财产"。本文提供了一些可能的解释,既解释了为什么西印度群岛采用了供给制,也解释了为什么供给制没有在美国南部种植园流行起来。根据罗纳德-科斯(Ronald Coase)的《企业的性质》(Nature of the Firm)一书,我们应该想到,如果实行供给制可以节约交易成本和代理成本,那么就应该实行供给制。随着购买进口食品变得越来越困难,种植园不得不自己提供食品。供应牺牲了种植园对剩余粮食的要求,但在西印度群岛,这种分散的生产方式可以提高被奴役者生产自己的粮食的积极性,同时节省监督的需要。
{"title":"An economic rationale for the different methods of feeding enslaved people in the antebellum South and British West Indies","authors":"Eleanor Brown , Ian Ayres","doi":"10.1016/j.irle.2024.106206","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2024.106206","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This article focuses on two different systems of feeding enslaved people. In the first system, primarily associated with the cotton, tobacco, and rice plantations of antebellum South and the <em>early</em> sugar plantations of the British West Indies, the obligation to feed enslaved people was executed by the plantation. In contrast, under a second system known as provisioning associated with the <em>later</em> British West Indian colonies, the master allocated land to enslaved people on which they would grow their own food. Over time, this land was understood, in the wider community of both those enslaved and the planters, to be the “property” of the enslaved person. This article offers potential explanations both for why provisioning was adopted in the West Indies, and why provisioning did not take hold in southern U.S. plantations. Following Ronald Coase’s <em>Nature of the Firm</em>, we should expect to see provisioning when doing so economizes on transaction and agency costs. As it became more difficult to purchase imported food, plantations had to provide their own food. Provisioning sacrificed the plantations’ claims to surplus food, but in the West Indies such decentralized production could enhance incentives for enslaved people to produce their own food while economizing on the need for supervision.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47202,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Law and Economics","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 106206"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141312758","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}
Pub Date : 2024-05-28DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2024.106205
Jonathan Kurzfeld
Prison gangs are often thought to create a “culture of violence” in U.S. prisons and jails. Yet mounting research and evidence suggests that prison gangs, in pursuit of profits from illicit market activity, also act as a check on the violent behavior of the broader prison population. This paper synthesizes existing research on prison gangs into a modeling framework that treats gangs as profit-maximizing suppliers and sources of informal governance in an illicit marketplace. The model offers broad policy implications that highlight the challenges and potential unintended consequences of correctional policies that address violence and gang activity.
{"title":"Strategic anarchy; a model of prison violence as a means to informal governance and rent extraction","authors":"Jonathan Kurzfeld","doi":"10.1016/j.irle.2024.106205","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2024.106205","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Prison gangs are often thought to create a “culture of violence” in U.S. prisons and jails. Yet mounting research and evidence suggests that prison gangs, in pursuit of profits from illicit market activity, also act as a check on the violent behavior of the broader prison population. This paper synthesizes existing research on prison gangs into a modeling framework that treats gangs as profit-maximizing suppliers and sources of informal governance in an illicit marketplace. The model offers broad policy implications that highlight the challenges and potential unintended consequences of correctional policies that address violence and gang activity.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47202,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Law and Economics","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 106205"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141240602","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}
Pub Date : 2024-05-22DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2024.106198
C.S. Agnes Cheng , Henry He Huang , Zhen Lei , Haitian Lu
This study examines whether ex ante securities litigation risk prompts firms to make more or less voluntary restatements. The litigation risk is captured by a new measure based on the dismissal rate of the district court where the firm is headquartered. We find that misreporting firms headquartered in lenient (high dismissal rate) court jurisdictions are more likely to make voluntary restatements. Using the U.S. Supreme Court’s Tellabs decision as an exogenous shock that reduces the leniency of some district courts, we find robust evidence that higher litigation risk decreases managers’ incentives to admit their misreporting. Our finding sheds new light on the litigation risk-voluntary disclosure paradox by pointing to a positive aspect of court leniency in motivating self-policing behavior such as restatement.
{"title":"Ex ante litigation risk and firm restatement decisions: Evidence from district courts","authors":"C.S. Agnes Cheng , Henry He Huang , Zhen Lei , Haitian Lu","doi":"10.1016/j.irle.2024.106198","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.irle.2024.106198","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study examines whether ex ante securities litigation risk prompts firms to make more or less voluntary restatements. The litigation risk is captured by a new measure based on the dismissal rate of the district court where the firm is headquartered. We find that misreporting firms headquartered in lenient (high dismissal rate) court jurisdictions are more likely to make voluntary restatements. Using the U.S. Supreme Court’s <em>Tellabs</em> decision as an exogenous shock that reduces the leniency of some district courts, we find robust evidence that higher litigation risk decreases managers’ incentives to admit their misreporting. Our finding sheds new light on the litigation risk-voluntary disclosure paradox by pointing to a positive aspect of court leniency in motivating self-policing behavior such as restatement.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47202,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Law and Economics","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 106198"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141133914","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}
Pub Date : 2024-04-29DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2024.106197
Philipp Erfurth
This research provides a comprehensive study of the linkages between institutional structures, balance of power between core and peripheries, endogenous extractive policies and inequality in the context of nineteenth century unification of Germany and Italy. To conduct this analysis, the study puts forward estimates of income inequality for pre-unification German states using social tables, compiled using primary data, some of which have thus far been unexplored in economic research. The findings suggest that the power balance between core and periphery, systems of government as well as distorted policies contributed to differences between the Italian and German experiences, specifically to the rise of inequality in the former and no marked increase in the latter.
{"title":"Unequal unification? Income inequality and unification in nineteenth century Italy and Germany","authors":"Philipp Erfurth","doi":"10.1016/j.irle.2024.106197","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2024.106197","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This research provides a comprehensive study of the linkages between institutional structures, balance of power between core and peripheries, endogenous extractive policies and inequality in the context of nineteenth century unification of Germany and Italy. To conduct this analysis, the study puts forward estimates of income inequality for pre-unification German states using social tables, compiled using primary data, some of which have thus far been unexplored in economic research. The findings suggest that the power balance between core and periphery, systems of government as well as distorted policies contributed to differences between the Italian and German experiences, specifically to the rise of inequality in the former and no marked increase in the latter.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47202,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Law and Economics","volume":"78 ","pages":"Article 106197"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140824347","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}