Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 3998 Results
TOTM I didn’t pick the name of this weblog, but I really like it. It encapsulates, I believe, much of what the blogosphere is about. Read . . .
I didn’t pick the name of this weblog, but I really like it. It encapsulates, I believe, much of what the blogosphere is about.
Read the full piece here.
TOTM It is a pretty exciting time in the antitrust world. This, of course, is bad news for firms. SCOTUS will decide three antitrust cases this . . .
It is a pretty exciting time in the antitrust world. This, of course, is bad news for firms. SCOTUS will decide three antitrust cases this term, each offering a promising opportunity to clarify murky doctrine or undo an erroneous application of relatively clear antitrust principles. Texaco v Dagher falls into the latter category. The bulk of the commentary I’ve seen has been critical. For example, Christine Hurt at the Glom describes the plaintiff’s theory “somewhat strained.” Ron Davis goes a bit further, describing Dagher as “The Worst Antitrust Case of the 21st Century.” That is saying something. Yet, given the impact of the decision on integrative activity if affirmed, I’m inclined to agree.
Scholarship In this short essay, we take on some of the common claims surrounding the law and economics of the backdating of options. Most of these claims are rooted in the basic argument that backdating options amounts to concealment of compensation.
In this short essay, we take on some of the common claims surrounding the law and economics of the backdating of options. Most of these claims are rooted in the basic argument that backdating options amounts to concealment of compensation. While we agree that backdating may have amounted to a technical rule violation in some cases, there is actually no concealment and, in fact, backdated options are fully disclosed when granted, and their value incorporated into stock price. We also challenge a few other myths surrounding the practice of backdating options.
Scholarship Abstract Behavioral law and economics scholars who advance paternalistic policy proposals typically employ static models of decision-making behavior, despite the dynamic effects of paternalistic policies. . . .
Behavioral law and economics scholars who advance paternalistic policy proposals typically employ static models of decision-making behavior, despite the dynamic effects of paternalistic policies. In this article, we consider how paternalistic policies fare under a dynamic account of decision-making that incorporates learning and motivation effects. This approach brings out two important limitations on the efficiency effects of paternalistic regulations. First, if preferences and biases are endogenous to institutional forces, paternalistic government regulations may perpetuate and even magnify a given bias and cause other adverse psychological effects. Second, for some biases, it will be more efficient to invest resources in debiasing than to change legal rights and remedies or, in some cases, to do nothing in light of the natural variation in irrational propensities. We propose dynamic models for determining ex ante and ex post when accommodation of bias will be second-best efficient. These models direct decision-makers to consider (1) the efficiency cost of the bias; (2) the extent to which accommodation worsens the bias or, alternatively, the extent to which non-accommodation improves the bias or has other benefits; and (3) the potential for education or other mechanisms to debias an individual. We argue that the concept of “cognitive hazard” – the potential for the costs of a bias to increase as individuals are insulated from the adverse effects of the bias – should be added to the concept of moral hazard as important qualifications to paternalistic proposals.
Scholarship Abstract The legality of nonprice vertical practices in the U.S. is determined by their likely competitive effects. An optimal enforcement rule combines evidence with theory . . .
The legality of nonprice vertical practices in the U.S. is determined by their likely competitive effects. An optimal enforcement rule combines evidence with theory to update prior beliefs, and specifies a decision that minimizes the expected loss. Because the welfare effects of vertical practices are theoretically ambiguous, optimal decisions depend heavily on prior beliefs, which should be guided by empirical evidence. Empirically, vertical restraints appear to reduce price and/or increase output. Thus, absent a good natural experiment to evaluate a particular restraint’s effect, an optimal policy places a heavy burden on plaintiffs to show that a restraint is anticompetitive
Scholarship In this article we examine the use of business documents to prove antitrust violations. Such usage has long occurred in the courts and regulatory agencies. More recently, there has been a scholarly effort to justify the use of such documents and the rhetoric they contain in antitrust analysis.
This Article considers the implications for antitrust law and policy of the relationship between business rhetoric and economic analysis. We maintain that antitrust analysis should remain firmly rooted in economics and that courts must be wary of the role of business rhetoric in antitrust analysis and adjudication. This is not to say that “market realities” reflected in business documents and testimony should not be considered in antitrust cases. Rather, courts and policy makers should recognize the distinction between the market realities themselves and expressions or characterizations of those realities for legally irrelevant business purposes. An important implication is that regulators’ and courts’ reliance on business documents is misplaced, and much of this material should be excluded from consideration by courts.
Scholarship Abstract Tax evasion is still widespread around the world, among the most advanced countries too. Its level in Italy is comparatively very high, as it . . .
Tax evasion is still widespread around the world, among the most advanced countries too. Its level in Italy is comparatively very high, as it is commonly recognized. This essay offers a broad non-technical outline of the main topics concerning tax evasion, from the economist’s point of view. The first section introduces the paper, summarizes its main contents, and depicts the basic conclusions and suggestions. The second section is devoted to a critical survey of existing empirical estimates on evasion magnitude, both in Italy and in other Western countries. Some figures on tax evasion consequences in Italy are then briefly discussed. The third section focuses on individuals’ decision to evade, inside the framework built on the classical grounds of Allingham-Sandmo’s (A/S) model. It scrutinizes A/S model’s hypotheses and implications and finally introduces some other factors which may prove relevant for the decision to evade taxes. According to this framework, the fourth section analytically derives the main properties of new audit procedures, recently adopted or proposed in Italy
NOTE: The paper is in Italian.
Popular Media Even the smallest economic factor can scarcely escape the effects of global commerce today. For example, a local tomato farmer may be competing with foreign . . .
Even the smallest economic factor can scarcely escape the effects of global commerce today. For example, a local tomato farmer may be competing with foreign imports directly, exporting her produce abroad, or simply selling her tomatoes in a domestic market where the prevailing price is determined in part by the availability of competing foreign products. And it is not simply commercial activity that has an international flavor. Laws enacted in one country to protect the environment, labor standards, and competitive markets invariably affect citizens or governments of other countries.
Scholarship Abstract The literature on the economic analysis of intellectual property rights evidences a broad scholarly consensus on a number of central and important issues. First, . . .
The literature on the economic analysis of intellectual property rights evidences a broad scholarly consensus on a number of central and important issues. First, intellectual property rights enable economic actors to capture some of the benefits of the investment they make in establishing a good reputation, creating expressive works, and inventing new and improved technology. Absent intellectual property rights, copiers are free to take for themselves a significant part of the economic benefit generated by these types of investment and to undermine the incentive to make these in- vestments in the first place. Second, the investment activities induced by intellectual property rights-developing a positive reputation with consumers, creating expressive works that consumers want to read, view, or hear, and developing improved technology- are efficient investments up to the point that consumers are willing to pay for their fruits. Third, a decentralized system of incentives such as that created by a system of intellectual property rights will over time produce results better preferred by consumers than will any kind of centrally directed subsidy system. Fourth, intellectual property rights systems have costs, costs involved in identifying, defining and enforcing the subject matter of the rights. Fifth, the intellectual property regimes of the United States, in particular, and of the developed economies are, as a general matter, economically sensible, no matter what particular details may concern a particular author. Even Justice Stephen Breyer, that once youthful Harvard skeptic, has said that the issue is not whether to have intellectual property rights, but what form they should take.
Scholars made considerable progress over the last century understanding the economics of intellectual property rights. Yet, much remains to be done. There is ample room for additional progress in the literature. Indeed, it seems likely that this progress will result in part from the work of the scholars who assembled for this conference.
