ArticlePDF Available

Behavioral Law and Economics: A Progress Report

Authors:
C. Sunstein at Harvard University
C. Sunstein
Download full-text PDFDownload full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract

Corruption in the public sector erodes tax compliance and leads to higher tax evasion. Moreover, corrupt public officials abuse their public power to extort bribes from the private agents. In both types of interaction with the public sector, the private agents are bound to face uncertainty with respect to their disposable incomes. To analyse effects of this uncertainty, a stochastic dynamic growth model with the public sector is examined. It is shown that deterministic excessive red tape and corruption deteriorate the growth potential through income redistribution and public sector inefficiencies. Most importantly, it is demonstrated that the increase in corruption via higher uncertainty exerts adverse effects on capital accumulation, thus leading to lower growth rates.
bleprogressrepo
rt.pdf
Content uploaded by C. Sunstein
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by C. Sunstein on Dec 14, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
00b49534135ea0fed80000
00.pdf
Content uploaded by C. Sunstein
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by C. Sunstein on Apr 06, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Behavioral law and economics: a progress report
CR Sunstein
American Law and Economics Review; Fall 1999; 1, 1; ABI/INFORM Global
pg. 115
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
... However, this view is also based on a rather unfortunate understanding of defaults as a type of nudge. While the use of defaults is consistent with the definition of nudges as anything that does not "outlaw" choices or behavior, this view also glazes over the fact that the use of defaults in actual policy design has little to do with non-standard tools and everything to do with the question of how to use law and legislation in a way that incorporates behavioral insights (Alemanno & Sibony, 2015;Jolls, 2007;Sunstein, 1999). The concept of defaults thus not only builds on the notion of a predefined outcome in case of inaction by contracting parties in contract law but also finds parallels in administrative law and procedural law (Sibony & Alemanno, 2015). ...
Is there a behavioral revolution in policy design? A new agenda and inventory of the behavioral toolbox
Article
Full-text available
  • Nov 2023
The article argues for a revised research on behavioral public policy focused on the core claim and sine qua non of a behavioral “revolution”: the ability to produce equal or better outcomes with less stringent policy designs than in traditional solutions, at least for certain types of problems. Three contributions to such an agenda are proposed. First, the article argues that the growing focus on the evaluation of real-world behavioral policy programs, as opposed to experimental studies within specialized areas of research, calls for a corresponding theoretical orientation toward existing literature on policy tools and design. Second, a doctrine of policy design is extrapolated from the broader behavioral paradigm and specified in relation to four general areas of application. These provide an essential context for the evaluation of the behavioral claim to improved policy design and highlight that behavioral successes may well, contra this claim, be a result of a de facto increase in stringency vis-à-vis traditional responses. Third, the article proposes a new and substantially revised inventory of the behavioral toolbox, which specifies the stringency, mechanisms, and potential costs of different behavioral tools and techniques, which is both essential to the evaluation of the behavioral claim and necessary to overcome the arbitrariness and mistakes of existing inventories.
View
Do Parties Negotiate After Trespass Litigation?An Empirical Study of Coasean Bargaining
Article
  • May 2024
The allocative efficiency outcome predicted by the Coase theorem critically depends on the assumption that, barring high transaction costs, parties will bargain after litigation and misallocated entitlements by courts will be re-allocated through voluntary exchanges. Ward Farnsworth’s 1999 small-scale survey lent credence to the claim that parties do not bargain after litigation because of the endowment effect and the animosity created by litigation. Farnsworth’s sample is small and statistically biased. Yet no other article has tested whether parties in the real world would systematically fail to exchange for behavioral reasons. This paper combines seven different data sources to shed light on this issue. We survey 1511 practicing attorneys, who reported that a substantial minority of their clients settled with the other litigating party after courts had rendered decisions. We also examine over 300 hand-coded Taiwanese cases in which the landowner sued the illicit possessor for building a structure on the plaintiff’s property. Real estate transaction records of the land in dispute show that in 6% of the cases, the landowner registered a sale of property to the possessor after the litigation. Evidence from Google Street View and satellite pictures taken by the Taiwan government suggests that the exchange rate is higher than 6%. Logistic regressions suggest that post-litigation bargaining dynamics are at least partly rational — allocative efficiency and transaction costs (conventionally defined) still matter. To the extent that the pro se status proxies for animosity incurred during litigation, Farnsworth’s thesis is also supported.
View
Depolarizing Through Deliberation in Civics Education: A Case Study of Like-Minded High School Students
Article
  • Jun 2022
This article presents a successful example of fostering pluralism by reducing affective polarization through facilitated conversations. Drawing from the results of a Deliberative Polling experiment, this article finds significant depolarization and moderation as a result of deliberation on policy issues by like-minded high school students who predominantly self-identified as liberal. While critics of deliberation are concerned with like-minded participants becoming more extreme and living in echo chambers, this article shows that Deliberative Polling, even among like-minded individuals can depolarize. Deliberation of eighteen economic and healthcare reform proposals by thirty-eight groups of participants demonstrated no systematic trend of group polarization. A split-half experimental design allowed inference that deliberation was not just correlated with but caused decreases in both affective and issue polarization. Remarkably, deliberation not only moderated opinions on the issues deliberated, but also moderated opinions on related issues not deliberated. The deliberation procedures necessary to achieve such an outcome are discussed, including not setting consensus as a goal, providing supplementary information, and moderating discussions. After a literature review, the methods of the experiment are detailed, followed by a discussion of the results and a brief conclusion about future prospects for bridge building.
View
View
Zentrale Erkenntnisse der Verhaltensökonomik – Zur begrenzten Rationalität des individuellen Entscheidungsverhaltens
Chapter
  • Sep 2022
Kapitel 2 des Buches beinhaltet eine Darstellung der zentralen Einsichten und Implikationen des verhaltensökonomischen Ansatzes umfasst, wobei neben den Ursachen einer begrenzten Rationalität individuellen Entscheidungsverhaltens in Gestalt von subjektiven Wahrnehmungsfehlern, der verzerrenden Wirkung kognitiver Heuristiken und Illusionen sowie der Zeitinkonsistenz individueller Präferenzen auch auf die Bedeutung von Fairnessnormen und Gerechtigkeitseinschätzungen einschließlich damit verbundener Reaktanzpotenziale für das individuelle Entscheidungsverhalten näher eingegangen wird.
View
A Behavioural Economics Approach to the Covidian Crisis
Chapter
  • Apr 2022
This study intends to answer three questions building on Behavioural Economics insights, namely: 1. why there was no preventative response to the pandemic, looking mainly into bounded motivation, scientific overconfidence, and lack of saliency; 2. how governments and their citizens reacted and why, focusing on fear, loss, and uncertainty aversions and risk communication (especially from social media) but also on the precautionary and proportionality principle and the way they were (wrongly and inefficiently) used in public health policies; 3. and how to align individual behaviours with the guidelines and rules from health authorities, mainly handwashing, masks and social distancing, based on the existing literature, looking at possible nudges to help with compliance.
View
View
Environmental Law and Economics: Theory and Practice
Book
  • Oct 2019
Cambridge Core - Environmental Policy, Economics and Law - Environmental Law and Economics - by Michael G. Faure
View
Teisėjų sprendimų priėmimas: intuityvus ir racionalus informacijos apdorojimas
Article
Full-text available
  • Feb 2019
[full article and abstract in Lithuanian; abstract in English] The contributions of judges’ intuitive and rational information processing making decisions on criminal (robbery) cases were evaluated. Results are interpreted in the context of cognitive psychology and discussed in relation to the contemporary trends and future perspectives in the field of legal decsion-making. Summary The aim of the current study is to investigate the contributions of judges’ intuitive and rational information processing making decisions on criminal (robbery) cases. 98 judges working in various courts of Lithuania‘s general jurisdiction participated in this study. We asked participants to solve two vignettes. One vignette was designed to be compatible with intuitive information processing (i. e., anchor provided at the end of the vignette suggested a correct decision), while another counter-intuitive (i. e., anchor suggested incorrect decision). 51 judges were instructed to solve vignettes intuiti- vely under a limit time (intuitive group), 47 judges – rationally with no time constraints (rational group). Results of the current study revealed that intuitive group decided on higher sentences (i.e. was closer to an anchor), compared to rational group. Additonally, we found that judges’ in rational group rational information processing contributed to 53.19%, and intuitive information processing – to 8,51% of all decision-making process. Moreover, judges’ in intuitive group rational information processing contributed to 35.29%, and intuitive information processing – to 15,68% of all decision-making process. Results are interpreted in the context of cognitive psychology.
View
Responses of Law and Economics to the Threat of Its Initial Success
Article
Full-text available
  • Oct 2018
Law and economics’ initial success has been under threat for some time now. Why is that? How has this threat been responded to? And how convincing are these responses? An important reason why law and economics is under threat is that empirical research has demonstrated that the functioning of the law cannot be well understood on the basis of the assumption of the rational actor and that policies based on this assumption are likely to be flawed. Since this criticism goes to the heart of law and economics, it has not gone unnoticed. Three responses can be distinguished. Whereas the first response maintains that the limitations attributed to the rational actor are grossly exaggerated and can easily be incorporated in rational choice theory, the second response welcomes the criticism and sees it as an opportunity to come up with an integrative theory of law and behavior. The third response also takes the criticism seriously but replaces the aspiration to come up with such an integrative theory with an approach that is sensitive to context-specific conceptions of rationality. It will be argued that the first two responses fall short, while the third response offers a promising way to go forward.
View
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.