Browse by title

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 379 items :

  • Law and Economics x
  • All accessible content x
Clear All
This content is available to you

Edited by Claude Ménard and Mary M. Shirley

This content is available to you

Claude Ménard and Mary M. Shirley

When New Institutional Economics (NIE) first appeared on the scholarly scene in the early 1970s, it was a transformative movement. NIE aimed to radically alter orthodox economics by showing that institutions are multidimensional and matter in significant ways that can be statistically measured and systematically modeled. In the decades since, thousands of articles and books have pursued this premise and NIE has evolved from an upstart movement to a major influence on researchers in economics, political science, law, management, and sociology. What made New Institutional Economics a radical idea was that it abandoned: [. . .]the standard neoclassical assumptions that individuals have perfect information and unbounded rationality and that transactions are costless and instantaneous. NIE assumes instead that individuals have incomplete information and limited mental capacity and because of this they face uncertainty about unforeseen events and outcomes and incur transaction costs to acquire information. To reduce risk and transaction costs humans create institutions, writing and enforcing constitutions, laws, contracts and regulations – so-called formal institutions – and structuring and inculcating norms of conduct, beliefs and habits of thought and behavior – or informal institutions. (Menard and Shirley, 2005, p. 1)

This content is available to you

Thomas Eger and Marc Scheufen

This chapter provides a short introduction into the development of the academic publishing market and the serials crisis, the role of copyright protection in academic publishing, and the origins of open access in academic publishing.

This content is available to you

Thomas Eger and Marc Scheufen

This content is available to you

Brian H. Bix

This content is available to you

Henry N. Butler and Jonathan Klick

This content is available to you

Edited by Jennifer Arlen

This content is available to you

Jennifer Arlen

This content is available to you

Tom R. Tyler

This chapter reviews the effectiveness of deterrence, in and of itself as well as relative to the influence of consensual models of regulation that rely upon legitimacy to motivate compliance. The law governing corporate criminal enforcement, and the law and economics scholarship designed to inform it, treats deterrence as the primary goal and coercion through threatened sanctions as the most effective tool to achieve this goal. Yet the available evidence on the causes of misconduct suggests that although people do respond to threatened sanctions, the influence of coercion is often overstated relative to its actual influence upon law-related behavior. In addition consensual approaches have been found to be more effective than is commonly supposed. Taken together these findings suggest the desirability of developing a broader approach to corporate regulation using both coercive and consensual models of regulation. Given the strength of the findings for consensual models, the persistence of coercive models as the dominant and even exclusive approach to corporate crime is striking. That dominance suggests the importance of focusing on the psychological attractions of coercion to people in positions of authority. It is suggested that those in authority are attracted to this approach not only because of evidence that it can be effective but also due to the psychological benefits it affords them.

This content is available to you

Jonathan Baron and Tess Wilkinson-Ryan

Baron and Wilkinson-Ryan outline the conceptual foundations of behavioral law and economics. The authors concentrate on the behavioral concepts imported into the field from psychology and experimental economics, and survey the normative models, descriptive theories, and prescriptive approaches featured in behavioral law and economics research. They endeavor to point out common themes in the research in an effort to tie together various groups of findings and counter the criticism that the field lacks the cohesion of standard law and economics.