Browse by title

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 380 items :

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

John B. Welfield and Le Thuy Trang

Interstate conflict, in the view of one-third of the global decision-makers and experts assembled to compile the World Economic Forum 2015 Global Risks Report, was the most probable serious danger facing the East Asia-Pacific region over the coming decade.1 A Pew Research Center global opinion poll conducted in the spring of 2014 found that people in eight of the 11 Asian countries surveyed expressed fears about possible military conflict over territorial disputes involving the People’s Republic of China and its neighbors. In China itself, more than six in every ten citizens expressed similar concerns. Two-thirds of Americans in 2014 also feared that intensifying territorial disputes between China and its neighbors could spark an armed conflict.2 Although the World Economic Forum 2017 Global Risks Report considered such conflict as a decreasing risk in terms of likelihood and impact,3 majorities in China, Japan and several other East Asian nations remained concerned about territorial tensions and the strategic drama being played out between the United States and China on land and at sea across the region had begun to fuel fears that the “Pacific century” might be shattered by a new Pacific war.4 For better or for worse, Southeast Asia, the region which has given birth to the most vigorous efforts to construct a regional security architecture designed to ensure long-term peace and stability in Asia and the wider Pacific Basin, is today confronted by a series of intractable problems that may well constitute the greatest tests it has faced since the end of the Cold War. Much has been said about the significance of the South China Sea for the security and development of the Indo-Pacific. This sea offers the shortest route from the Pacific Ocean to the Indian Ocean. About half of the world’s commerce, half of global liquefied natural gas and a third of global crude oil transit through this body of water each year.5 Two-fifths of the world’s tuna are born in the South China Sea, contributing to a multibillion-dollar fisheries industry.6 These statistics, oft-cited, are just a few indicators of the South China Sea’s importance to the region and the world at large. A durable regional security system that can deliver lasting stability and prosperity for the Indo-Pacific cannot be constructed in the absence of a smoothly functioning regional maritime order in this critical area. Yet this body of water, blessed with so many valuable resources and crisscrossed by a network of vital sea-lanes, has become the home to some of the most intractable territorial disputes in Asia and a stage for intensifying great power strategic competition. The longstanding territorial and maritime disputes simmering in the South China Sea and the machinations of great powers have been slowing down the momentum for regional cooperation and frustrating attempts to forge a robust and mutually beneficial security architecture. There is also another troubling dimension of very great significance. While the tempo of regional cooperation has slackened, the rate at which the South China Sea marine environment is deteriorating has accelerated. Forty percent of the South China Sea’s fish stocks have already been exhausted and, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, most fish resources in the western part of the South China Sea have been exploited or overexploited.7 Meanwhile, 70 percent of the South China Sea’s coral reefs are reported to be in poor or only fair condition.8 Put simply, while the challenges to the South China Sea marine environment are growing, the capacity of regional mechanisms to effectively address those challenges has been undermined or severely constrained.

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.