Vertical restraints have been the subject of lively policy and academic discussions. This chapter argues that experimental law and economics might strengthen the contributions of economic theories of vertical restrains to the design and implementation of antitrust institutions. First, experimental law and economics provides empirical evidence of the robustness of economic theories of antitrust. Second, the combination of economic theory and experimental work represents the application of scientific research methods. Third, experimental law and economics studies of antitrust involve the replication of complex and abstract economic theories using simple environments. These settings might facilitate policy-makers’ understanding of economic theories of antitrust. The chapter assesses the validity of claims regarding the contributions of experimental law and economics by investigating the methodological characteristics of seminal experimental work on vertical restraints and the outcomes produced by these studies.
Claudia M. Landeo
In tort litigation, delayed settlement imposes high costs on the parties and society. An appropriate design of litigation institutions and tort reform requires a good knowledge of the factors that affect litigants’ behavior. Both theoretical and experimental law and economics, which represent the cornerstones of the application of the scientific method, enhance our understanding of the effects of litigation institutions and tort reform on settlement and deterrence. This chapter evaluates the interaction between theoretical and experimental law and economics in the study of tort litigation institutions. Special attention is devoted to liability, litigation and tort reform institutions, and behavioral factors that might affect an impasse. The analysis suggests a productive interaction between theoretical and experimental law and economics. In particular, findings from experimental economics work on litigation institutions indicate the presence and robustness of cognitive biases, and provide evidence of the effects of litigants’ biased beliefs on the likelihood of impasse.