Naomi Kaplan-Damary, W. Thompson, R. Grady, H. Stern
The way in which jurors perceive reports of forensic evidence is of critical importance, especially in cases of forensic identification evidence that require examiners to compare items and assess whether they originate from a common source. The current study discusses methods for studying group differences among mock jurors and illustrates them using a reanalysis of data regarding lay perceptions of forensic science evidence. Conventional approaches that consider subpopulations defined a priori are compared with mixture models that infer group structure from the data, allowing detection of subgroups that cohere in unexpected ways. Mixture models allow researchers to determine whether a population comprises subpopulations that respond to evidence differently and then to consider how those subpopulations might be characterized. The reanalysis reported here shows that mixture models can enhance understanding of lay perceptions of an important type of forensic science evidence (DNA and fingerprint comparisons), providing insight into how the perceived strength of that evidence varies as a function of the language forensic experts use to describe their findings. This novel application of mixture models illustrates how such models can be used, more generally, to explore the importance of juror characteristics in jury decision making.
{"title":"Using mixture models to examine group difference among jurors: an illustration involving the perceived strength of forensic science evidence","authors":"Naomi Kaplan-Damary, W. Thompson, R. Grady, H. Stern","doi":"10.1093/LPR/MGAA016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/LPR/MGAA016","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The way in which jurors perceive reports of forensic evidence is of critical importance, especially in cases of forensic identification evidence that require examiners to compare items and assess whether they originate from a common source. The current study discusses methods for studying group differences among mock jurors and illustrates them using a reanalysis of data regarding lay perceptions of forensic science evidence. Conventional approaches that consider subpopulations defined a priori are compared with mixture models that infer group structure from the data, allowing detection of subgroups that cohere in unexpected ways. Mixture models allow researchers to determine whether a population comprises subpopulations that respond to evidence differently and then to consider how those subpopulations might be characterized. The reanalysis reported here shows that mixture models can enhance understanding of lay perceptions of an important type of forensic science evidence (DNA and fingerprint comparisons), providing insight into how the perceived strength of that evidence varies as a function of the language forensic experts use to describe their findings. This novel application of mixture models illustrates how such models can be used, more generally, to explore the importance of juror characteristics in jury decision making.","PeriodicalId":48724,"journal":{"name":"Law Probability & Risk","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/LPR/MGAA016","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47388174","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the past decade, and in response to the recommendations set forth by the National Research Council Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community (2009), scientists have conducted several black-box studies that attempt to estimate the error rates of firearm examiners. Most of these studies have resulted in vanishingly small error rates, and at least one of them (D. P. Baldwin, S. J. Bajic, M. Morris, and D. Zamzow. A Study of False-Positive and False-Negative Error Rates in Cartridge Case Comparisons. Technical report, Ames Lab IA, Performing, Fort Belvoir, VA, April 2014.) was cited by the President’s Council of Advisors in Science and Technology (PCAST) during the Obama administration, as an example of a well-designed experiment. What has received little attention, however, is the actual calculation of error rates and in particular, the effect of inconclusive findings on those error estimates. The treatment of inconclusives in the assessment of errors has far-reaching implications in the legal system. Here, we revisit several black-box studies in the area of firearms examination, investigating their treatment of inconclusive results. It is clear that there are stark differences in the rate of inconclusive results in regions with different norms for training and reporting conclusions. More surprisingly, the rate of inconclusive decisions for materials from different sources is notably higher than the rate of inconclusive decisions for same-source materials in some regions. To mitigate the effects of this difference we propose a unifying approach to the calculation of error rates that is directly applicable in forensic laboratories and in legal settings.
{"title":"Treatment of inconclusives in the AFTE range of conclusions","authors":"H. Hofmann, A. Carriquiry, Susan Vanderplas","doi":"10.1093/lpr/mgab002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgab002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In the past decade, and in response to the recommendations set forth by the National Research Council Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community (2009), scientists have conducted several black-box studies that attempt to estimate the error rates of firearm examiners. Most of these studies have resulted in vanishingly small error rates, and at least one of them (D. P. Baldwin, S. J. Bajic, M. Morris, and D. Zamzow. A Study of False-Positive and False-Negative Error Rates in Cartridge Case Comparisons. Technical report, Ames Lab IA, Performing, Fort Belvoir, VA, April 2014.) was cited by the President’s Council of Advisors in Science and Technology (PCAST) during the Obama administration, as an example of a well-designed experiment. What has received little attention, however, is the actual calculation of error rates and in particular, the effect of inconclusive findings on those error estimates. The treatment of inconclusives in the assessment of errors has far-reaching implications in the legal system. Here, we revisit several black-box studies in the area of firearms examination, investigating their treatment of inconclusive results. It is clear that there are stark differences in the rate of inconclusive results in regions with different norms for training and reporting conclusions. More surprisingly, the rate of inconclusive decisions for materials from different sources is notably higher than the rate of inconclusive decisions for same-source materials in some regions. To mitigate the effects of this difference we propose a unifying approach to the calculation of error rates that is directly applicable in forensic laboratories and in legal settings.","PeriodicalId":48724,"journal":{"name":"Law Probability & Risk","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48912111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
What are the consequences of religious exemptions? And what are the normative implications of these consequences? These questions are currently at the center of a heated debate. Opponents argue that granting exemptions would extend LGBTQ discrimination. Proponents of religious exemptions argue that religious exemption would not expand discrimination against same-sex couples. The troubling aspect of this debate is that none of the parties rely on actual data. Particularly missing are data on the effects of exemptions granted in Supreme Court decisions, an issue that the Court has addressed repeatedly in recent years—and is set to do so once again this term, in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. This Article intervenes in the debate based on the results of a large-scale field experiment that measured the effect of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) on same-sex couples in the wedding market. The field experiment revealed that Masterpiece reduced vendors’ willingness to provide wedding services to same-sex couples as compared with heterosexual couples, even for vendors that provided these services prior to the decision. Following Masterpiece, the odds that same-sex couples would experience discrimination are estimated between 61% and 85%. These results have several implications for the debate on religious exemptions. First, they discredit the argument that the effect of religious exemptions is negligible and that exemptions will not expand discrimination. Second, the results complicate the conventional portrait of religious objection as fixed and unyielding to change, showing that the demand for discrimination is elastic and socially constructed, even when coercion and sanctions are absent. Third, Masterpiece’s negative effects establish the pillar of the strict scrutiny doctrine of religious burdens, by showing that states have a compelling interest to enforce antidiscrimination law without exemptions to ensure access to public accommodations. Fourth, I advance an empirical approach to religion-equality conflicts that can guide legislatures that deliberate whether and how to enact religious exemptions from antidiscrimination laws.Finally, the troubling consequences of Masterpiece require the Supreme Court to proceed with great care as it sets to decide Fulton v. City of Philadelphia and any religion-equality conflict in the future. However the Court decides to resolve the constitutional issue at hand, it must take into account that even a deliberately narrow and case-specific exemption might have a significant negative impact on the market and its customers.
宗教豁免的后果是什么?这些结果的规范含义是什么?这些问题目前正处于激烈辩论的中心。反对者认为，给予豁免会扩大LGBTQ歧视。宗教豁免的支持者认为，宗教豁免不会扩大对同性伴侣的歧视。这场辩论令人不安的地方在于，各方都不依赖实际数据。尤其缺失的是关于最高法院判决中授予的豁免的影响的数据，这是最高法院近年来反复处理的一个问题，而且在富尔顿诉费城案(Fulton v. City of Philadelphia)中，这一问题将在本任期内再次得到解决。本文基于一项大规模现场实验的结果介入了这场辩论，该实验测量了杰作蛋糕店诉科罗拉多州民权委员会(2018)对婚礼市场上同性伴侣的影响。实地实验显示，与异性恋夫妇相比，Masterpiece降低了供应商为同性伴侣提供婚礼服务的意愿，即使是在决定之前提供这些服务的供应商也是如此。在杰作之后，同性伴侣遭受歧视的几率估计在61%到85%之间。这些结果对有关宗教豁免的辩论有几点启示。首先，他们质疑宗教豁免的影响可以忽略不计以及豁免不会扩大歧视的论点。其次，研究结果将传统的宗教反对观点复杂化，认为宗教反对是固定不变的，无法改变的。研究表明，即使在没有强制和制裁的情况下，对歧视的需求是有弹性的，是社会建构的。第三，《杰作》的负面影响确立了严格审查宗教负担原则的支柱，表明各州有强制执行反歧视法的迫切利益，没有豁免，以确保进入公共设施。第四，我提出了一种宗教平等冲突的实证方法，可以指导立法机构审议是否以及如何制定反歧视法的宗教豁免。最后，杰作案令人不安的后果要求最高法院在决定富尔顿诉费城市案以及未来任何宗教平等冲突时都要非常谨慎。无论法院如何决定解决手头的宪法问题，它都必须考虑到，即使是故意狭窄和针对具体案件的豁免，也可能对市场及其客户产生重大的负面影响。
{"title":"A License to Discriminate? The Empirical Consequences and Normative Implications of Religious Exemptions","authors":"Netta Barak Corren","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3733321","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3733321","url":null,"abstract":"What are the consequences of religious exemptions? And what are the normative implications of these consequences? These questions are currently at the center of a heated debate. Opponents argue that granting exemptions would extend LGBTQ discrimination. Proponents of religious exemptions argue that religious exemption would not expand discrimination against same-sex couples. The troubling aspect of this debate is that none of the parties rely on actual data. Particularly missing are data on the effects of exemptions granted in Supreme Court decisions, an issue that the Court has addressed repeatedly in recent years—and is set to do so once again this term, in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. This Article intervenes in the debate based on the results of a large-scale field experiment that measured the effect of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) on same-sex couples in the wedding market. The field experiment revealed that Masterpiece reduced vendors’ willingness to provide wedding services to same-sex couples as compared with heterosexual couples, even for vendors that provided these services prior to the decision. Following Masterpiece, the odds that same-sex couples would experience discrimination are estimated between 61% and 85%. These results have several implications for the debate on religious exemptions. First, they discredit the argument that the effect of religious exemptions is negligible and that exemptions will not expand discrimination. Second, the results complicate the conventional portrait of religious objection as fixed and unyielding to change, showing that the demand for discrimination is elastic and socially constructed, even when coercion and sanctions are absent. Third, Masterpiece’s negative effects establish the pillar of the strict scrutiny doctrine of religious burdens, by showing that states have a compelling interest to enforce antidiscrimination law without exemptions to ensure access to public accommodations. Fourth, I advance an empirical approach to religion-equality conflicts that can guide legislatures that deliberate whether and how to enact religious exemptions from antidiscrimination laws.Finally, the troubling consequences of Masterpiece require the Supreme Court to proceed with great care as it sets to decide Fulton v. City of Philadelphia and any religion-equality conflict in the future. However the Court decides to resolve the constitutional issue at hand, it must take into account that even a deliberately narrow and case-specific exemption might have a significant negative impact on the market and its customers.","PeriodicalId":48724,"journal":{"name":"Law Probability & Risk","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83039769","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Two views, inspired by Alf Ross, are sometimes raised against law and economics. One is that consequential analysis has no role in legal science, the task of which is to predict court verdicts. The other is that normative criteria involving fairness or social welfare are meaningless. I argue that the former view rests on a misreading of Ross, who in fact called for the development of law and economics. As for normative criteria, I argue in favor of a pragmatic approach, which inquires whether normative concepts can affect our views of the desirability of a legal rule or verdict.
{"title":"On Consequential and Normative Analysis of Law","authors":"Henrik Lando","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3732711","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3732711","url":null,"abstract":"Two views, inspired by Alf Ross, are sometimes raised against law and economics. One is that consequential analysis has no role in legal science, the task of which is to predict court verdicts. The other is that normative criteria involving fairness or social welfare are meaningless. I argue that the former view rests on a misreading of Ross, who in fact called for the development of law and economics. As for normative criteria, I argue in favor of a pragmatic approach, which inquires whether normative concepts can affect our views of the desirability of a legal rule or verdict.","PeriodicalId":48724,"journal":{"name":"Law Probability & Risk","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77530311","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
New and recently established systems for regulating competition are often prone to an institutional instability, weak authority, and fragile track-record. Their development negotiates a variety of lifecycles, with various factors impacting their evolution. Relying on competition system development literature to provide a theoretical framework for our research, an empirical qualitative research study was conducted with the aim of examining the competition system in Croatia, in the 1995-2018 period. Main stakeholders were interviewed (in-depth interviews), forty persons in total (NCA officials, judges, practitioners, corporate lawyers, journalists, and academics). Archival research, as well as online research, was conducted to find relevant press reports, and selected NCA quantitative data was analysed. Using content analysis software, original and valuable insights were drawn from this dataset. The aim is to develop a theory that is able to explain the reasons underlying competition system immaturity in Croatia, more than two decades after its creation. The findings include a specific evolutionary path, as well as two underlying issues. Four distinct phases of development were identified (Inception; Withdrawal; Pre-accession; and Post-accession phase). The underlying issues are, first, a lack of institutional and system embeddedness, and second, functional self-restraint on the side of the authority, arguably a result of negative institutional memory. The comprehensive dataset and methodology used, make this research distinctive in broader terms, including being the first such study conducted on Croatia. This paper aims to contribute to the broader literature on competition systems development by examining the relevance of specific factors influencing their evolution.
{"title":"On the Development of (Not So) New Competition Systems – Findings from An Empirical Study","authors":"Jasminka Pecotić Kaufman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3727395","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3727395","url":null,"abstract":"New and recently established systems for regulating competition are often prone to an institutional instability, weak authority, and fragile track-record. Their development negotiates a variety of lifecycles, with various factors impacting their evolution. Relying on competition system development literature to provide a theoretical framework for our research, an empirical qualitative research study was conducted with the aim of examining the competition system in Croatia, in the 1995-2018 period. Main stakeholders were interviewed (in-depth interviews), forty persons in total (NCA officials, judges, practitioners, corporate lawyers, journalists, and academics). Archival research, as well as online research, was conducted to find relevant press reports, and selected NCA quantitative data was analysed. Using content analysis software, original and valuable insights were drawn from this dataset. The aim is to develop a theory that is able to explain the reasons underlying competition system immaturity in Croatia, more than two decades after its creation. The findings include a specific evolutionary path, as well as two underlying issues. Four distinct phases of development were identified (Inception; Withdrawal; Pre-accession; and Post-accession phase). The underlying issues are, first, a lack of institutional and system embeddedness, and second, functional self-restraint on the side of the authority, arguably a result of negative institutional memory. The comprehensive dataset and methodology used, make this research distinctive in broader terms, including being the first such study conducted on Croatia. This paper aims to contribute to the broader literature on competition systems development by examining the relevance of specific factors influencing their evolution.","PeriodicalId":48724,"journal":{"name":"Law Probability & Risk","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82004594","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-01DOI: 10.4337/9781789901351.00012
J. Denoncourt
Technological innovation and capitalism have rapidly transformed our planet, raising our living standards while degrading the environment. The most striking impact of the advance of human-created technological progress on the natural environment is climate change. There is an urgent need for a wide variety of innovations to solve problems on a global scale. One of the multi-faceted aspects of sustainable development in a market-based context is the role that intellectual property rights (IPRs) play in incentivizing new knowledge and fiscal regulatory policy. How banks provide innovation firms with credit, while mitigating their own risk, is an ongoing challenge with both short- and long-term implications. Prudential banking regulation has yet to fully consider the modern role of intangible assets and IPRs in business and the economy and as bank assets. With new insights regarding the role of prudential financial regulation treatment of intangibles and especially IPRs such as patents, trade marks and designs that are formally registered, this chapter makes an original contribution to the interdisciplinary literature regarding Sustainable Development Goal 9 (SDG 9) to promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization while fostering innovation.
{"title":"A Modern Role for Intellectual Property Rights in Sustainable Finance, Prudential Banking and Capital Adequacy Regulation","authors":"J. Denoncourt","doi":"10.4337/9781789901351.00012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789901351.00012","url":null,"abstract":"Technological innovation and capitalism have rapidly transformed our planet, raising our living standards while degrading the environment. The most striking impact of the advance of human-created technological progress on the natural environment is climate change. There is an urgent need for a wide variety of innovations to solve problems on a global scale. One of the multi-faceted aspects of sustainable development in a market-based context is the role that intellectual property rights (IPRs) play in incentivizing new knowledge and fiscal regulatory policy. How banks provide innovation firms with credit, while mitigating their own risk, is an ongoing challenge with both short- and long-term implications. Prudential banking regulation has yet to fully consider the modern role of intangible assets and IPRs in business and the economy and as bank assets. With new insights regarding the role of prudential financial regulation treatment of intangibles and especially IPRs such as patents, trade marks and designs that are formally registered, this chapter makes an original contribution to the interdisciplinary literature regarding Sustainable Development Goal 9 (SDG 9) to promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization while fostering innovation.","PeriodicalId":48724,"journal":{"name":"Law Probability & Risk","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78017888","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The emergence of the multi-sided platform business model has had a profound impact on the news publishing industry. By acting as gatekeepers to news traffic, large online platforms have become unavoidable trading partners for news businesses, and exert substantial bargaining power in their dealings. Concerns have been raised that the bargaining power imbalance between online platforms and content producers may threaten the viability of publishers’ businesses. Notably, digital infomediaries are accused of capturing a disproportionate share of advertising revenue relative to the investments made in producing news content. Moreover, by affecting the monetization of news, the dominance of some online platforms is deemed to have contributed to the decline of trustworthy sources of news. Against this background, governments have been urged to intervene in order to ensure the sustainability of the publishing industry. The EU has decided to address publishers’ concerns by introducing an additional layer of copyright as a means to encourage cooperation between publishers and online content distributors. And the French Competition Authority has recently accused Google of adopting a display policy aimed at frustrating the objective of the domestic law implementing the EU legislation, hence requiring Google to conduct negotiations in good faith with publishers and news agencies on the remuneration for the reuse of their protected content. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has instead embraced a regulatory approach, developing a mandatory bargaining code. This paper analyzes different solutions advanced to remedy these problems in order to assess their economic and legal justifications as well as their effectiveness.
多方平台商业模式的出现，对新闻出版行业产生了深远的影响。通过充当新闻流量的看门人，大型在线平台已成为新闻企业不可避免的贸易伙伴，并在交易中发挥了相当大的议价能力。有人担心，在线平台和内容生产商之间的议价能力失衡，可能会威胁到出版商业务的生存能力。值得注意的是，数字信息中介被指控攫取了与新闻内容制作投资不成比例的广告收入份额。此外，通过影响新闻的货币化，一些在线平台的主导地位被认为是导致可信新闻来源下降的原因之一。在这种背景下，政府被敦促进行干预，以确保出版业的可持续性。欧盟决定通过引入额外的版权层来解决出版商的担忧，以鼓励出版商与在线内容分销商之间的合作。法国竞争管理局最近指控谷歌采取了一项显示政策，旨在阻碍实施欧盟立法的国内法的目标，因此要求谷歌与出版商和新闻机构就重用其受保护内容的报酬进行真诚的谈判。相反，澳大利亚竞争与消费者委员会(Australian Competition and Consumer Commission)采取了一种监管方式，制定了一套强制性的议价准则。本文分析了为纠正这些问题而提出的不同解决方案，以评估其经济和法律依据及其有效性。
{"title":"Enforcing Copyright Through Antitrust? A Transatlantic View of the Strange Case of News Publishers Against Digital Platforms","authors":"G. Colangelo","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3719811","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3719811","url":null,"abstract":"The emergence of the multi-sided platform business model has had a profound impact on the news publishing industry. By acting as gatekeepers to news traffic, large online platforms have become unavoidable trading partners for news businesses, and exert substantial bargaining power in their dealings. Concerns have been raised that the bargaining power imbalance between online platforms and content producers may threaten the viability of publishers’ businesses. Notably, digital infomediaries are accused of capturing a disproportionate share of advertising revenue relative to the investments made in producing news content. Moreover, by affecting the monetization of news, the dominance of some online platforms is deemed to have contributed to the decline of trustworthy sources of news. \u0000 \u0000Against this background, governments have been urged to intervene in order to ensure the sustainability of the publishing industry. The EU has decided to address publishers’ concerns by introducing an additional layer of copyright as a means to encourage cooperation between publishers and online content distributors. And the French Competition Authority has recently accused Google of adopting a display policy aimed at frustrating the objective of the domestic law implementing the EU legislation, hence requiring Google to conduct negotiations in good faith with publishers and news agencies on the remuneration for the reuse of their protected content. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has instead embraced a regulatory approach, developing a mandatory bargaining code. This paper analyzes different solutions advanced to remedy these problems in order to assess their economic and legal justifications as well as their effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":48724,"journal":{"name":"Law Probability & Risk","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85904677","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
While social norms have received great attention within economics, little is known about the role of personal norms. We propose a simple utility framework — which assumes that people care about monetary payoff, social norms and personal norms — and design a novel two-part experiment to investigate the predictive value of personal norms across four economic games. We show that personal norms — together with social norms and monetary payoff — are highly predictive of individuals’ behavior. Moreover, they are: i) inherently distinct from social norms across a series of economic contexts, ii) robust to an exogenous increase in social image concerns, which increases the predictive value of social norms but does not weaken that of personal norms, and iii) complementary to social norms in predicting behavior, as a model with both personal and social norms outperforms a model with only one of the two norms. Taken together, our results support personal norms as a key driver of economic behavior, relevant in a wide array of economic settings.
{"title":"Personal Norms — and Not Only Social Norms — Shape Economic Behavior","authors":"Zvonimir Bašić, Eugenio Verrina","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3720539","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3720539","url":null,"abstract":"While social norms have received great attention within economics, little is known about the role of personal norms. We propose a simple utility framework — which assumes that people care about monetary payoff, social norms and personal norms — and design a novel two-part experiment to investigate the predictive value of personal norms across four economic games. We show that personal norms — together with social norms and monetary payoff — are highly predictive of individuals’ behavior. Moreover, they are: i) inherently distinct from social norms across a series of economic contexts, ii) robust to an exogenous increase in social image concerns, which increases the predictive value of social norms but does not weaken that of personal norms, and iii) complementary to social norms in predicting behavior, as a model with both personal and social norms outperforms a model with only one of the two norms. Taken together, our results support personal norms as a key driver of economic behavior, relevant in a wide array of economic settings.","PeriodicalId":48724,"journal":{"name":"Law Probability & Risk","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88766047","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The negative and corrosive impacts of corruption in the fields of economics, politics, and law are widely discussed. Less understood are the potentially negative impacts of anti‐corruption struggles and strategies themselves. This article presents a case study of Brazil's ‘Car Wash’ (‘Lava Jato’) scandal from a legal and political perspective. Although the subsequent Operation Car Wash investigation was widely regarded as remarkably successful, supposedly buttressing the rule of law through high‐profile prosecutions of leading politicians and businesspersons, the article argues that legal due process, wider constitutional law, and the political process were undermined. While the use of media leaks to strengthen the investigation proved tactically successful, when coupled with new legal instruments it undermined the presumption of innocence and contributed to a climate in which political and legal debates themselves became increasingly subordinated to simplistic polarizing anti‐corruption discourses, thereby undermining an already fragile political and institutional environment.
{"title":"Caught in an Authoritarian Trap of its Own Making? Brazil's ‘Lava Jato’ Anti‐Corruption Investigation and the Politics of Prosecutorial Overreach","authors":"G. Meszaros","doi":"10.1111/jols.12245","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12245","url":null,"abstract":"The negative and corrosive impacts of corruption in the fields of economics, politics, and law are widely discussed. Less understood are the potentially negative impacts of anti‐corruption struggles and strategies themselves. This article presents a case study of Brazil's ‘Car Wash’ (‘Lava Jato’) scandal from a legal and political perspective. Although the subsequent Operation Car Wash investigation was widely regarded as remarkably successful, supposedly buttressing the rule of law through high‐profile prosecutions of leading politicians and businesspersons, the article argues that legal due process, wider constitutional law, and the political process were undermined. While the use of media leaks to strengthen the investigation proved tactically successful, when coupled with new legal instruments it undermined the presumption of innocence and contributed to a climate in which political and legal debates themselves became increasingly subordinated to simplistic polarizing anti‐corruption discourses, thereby undermining an already fragile political and institutional environment.","PeriodicalId":48724,"journal":{"name":"Law Probability & Risk","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74849750","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I provide a new theory of the relationship between economic development and democracy. I argue that a large share of employment in manufacturing (i.e., industrialization) makes mass mobilization both more likely to occur and more costly to suppress. This increases the power of the masses relative to autocratic elites, making democracy more likely. Novel manufacturing employment data for 145 countries over 170 years (1845--2015) supports this hypothesis. First, all highly developed countries in the West and East Asia democratized when approximately 25% of their workforce was employed in manufacturing, and virtually no other country has ever reached this level without eventually becoming a well-functioning democracy. Second, industrialization is strongly correlated with democracy, even after accounting for two-way fixed effects and other economic determinants of democracy (e.g., income and inequality). Last, unlike with other economic determinants the effect occurs on both transitions and consolidations, and is equally large after WWII.
{"title":"Industrialization and Democracy","authors":"Sam van Noort","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3693044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3693044","url":null,"abstract":"I provide a new theory of the relationship between economic development and democracy. I argue that a large share of employment in manufacturing (i.e., industrialization) makes mass mobilization both more likely to occur and more costly to suppress. This increases the power of the masses relative to autocratic elites, making democracy more likely. Novel manufacturing employment data for 145 countries over 170 years (1845--2015) supports this hypothesis. First, all highly developed countries in the West and East Asia democratized when approximately 25% of their workforce was employed in manufacturing, and virtually no other country has ever reached this level without eventually becoming a well-functioning democracy. Second, industrialization is strongly correlated with democracy, even after accounting for two-way fixed effects and other economic determinants of democracy (e.g., income and inequality). Last, unlike with other economic determinants the effect occurs on both transitions and consolidations, and is equally large after WWII.","PeriodicalId":48724,"journal":{"name":"Law Probability & Risk","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82297198","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"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：