Graduated penalty scheme
AbstractEvaders of any dues such as local council tax, motor vehicle tax, tv license fees, etc., if detected, can pay promptly the dues plus any fine or postpone, which usually means a larger fine, and potentially imprisonment if payments are not made in full. Dominant among the likely reasons for this graduated penalty scheme are 'default tracking costs' and 'imprisonment costs'. Although in conflict with the state's basic objective of deterring evasion, a graduated penalty scheme may emerge as an optimal balance between the dual objectives of deterrence and settlement delay minimization. Based on a welfare-maximizing objective where the state determines optimal monitoring intensity and time profile of fines, an intuitively plausible condition is derived such that the fine scheme is of the graduated type.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal International Review of Law and Economics.
Volume (Year): 29 (2009)
Issue (Month): 4 (December)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/irle
Evasion/crime Fine default Graduated penalty;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Andreoni, James, 1992. "IRS as loan shark tax compliance with borrowing constraints," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 35-46, October.
- Polinsky, Mitchell & Shavell, Steven, 1979. "The Optimal Tradeoff between the Probability and Magnitude of Fines," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(5), pages 880-91, December.
- Wilde, Louis L., 1992. "Criminal choice, nonmonetary sanctions and marginal deterrence: A normative analysis," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 333-344, September.
- Mookherjee, Dilip & Png, I P L, 1994. "Marginal Deterrence in Enforcement of Law," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(5), pages 1039-66, October.
- Emons, Winand, 2003.
"A note on the optimal punishment for repeat offenders,"
International Review of Law and Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 253-259, September.
- Winand Emons, 2001. "A Note on the Optimal Punishment for Repeat Offenders," Diskussionsschriften dp0104, Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft.
- Winand Emons, .
"Escalating Penalties for Repeat Offenders,"
American Law & Economics Association Annual Meetings
1005, American Law & Economics Association.
- Shavell, Steven, 1992. "A note on marginal deterrence," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 345-355, September.
- Daniel L. Rubinfeld & David E.M. Sappington, 1987. "Efficient Awards and Standards of Proof in Judicial Proceedings," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(2), pages 308-315, Summer.
- Polinsky, A. Mitchell, 2006.
"The optimal use of fines and imprisonment when wealth is unobservable,"
Journal of Public Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 90(4-5), pages 823-835, May.
- A. Mitchell Polinsky, 2004. "The Optimal Use of Fines and Imprisonment when Wealth is Unobservable," Discussion Papers 03-037, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
- A. Mitchell Polinsky, 2004. "The Optimal Use of Fines and Imprisonment When Wealth is Unobservable," NBER Working Papers 10761, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Kim Jeong-Yoo, 2007. "Optimal Law Enforcement when the Offender can Dispose of his Wealth," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 221-229, August.
- Mookherjee, Dilip & Png, I P L, 1992. "Monitoring vis-a-vis Investigation in Enforcement of Law," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(3), pages 556-65, June.
- Levitt, Steven D., 1997. "Incentive compatibility constraints as an explanation for the use of prison sentences instead of fines," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 179-192, June.
- A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell, 1990.
"Enforcement Costs and the Optimal Magnitude and Probability of Fines,"
NBER Working Papers
3429, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Polinsky, A Mitchell & Shavell, Steven, 1992. "Enforcement Costs and the Optimal Magnitude and Probability of Fines," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 35(1), pages 133-48, April.
- Mitchell Polinsky, A. & Rubinfeld, Daniel L., 1991.
"A model of optimal fines for repeat offenders,"
Journal of Public Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 291-306, December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.