Law and Preferences
AbstractLegal rules do more than provide incentives, they change people. When preferences and norms are endogenously determined via a process of imitation and learning, legal rules, by affecting the market outcome, may affect the dynamics of preference formation. Analyzing the effect of different legal rules should therefore go beyond the analysis of the incentives they provide. It should also include an analysis of their effect on the distribution of preferences and norms of behavior. We illustrate this claim by considering a simple market game in which individuals may have preferences that include fairness concerns. We show that different legal rules change not only the pattern of trade in a market game, but also individuals' fairness concerns. That is, different rules may eventually make individuals care more (or less) about a fair outcome. Specifically, our model suggests that enhanced remedies for breach of contract may reduce equilibrium preferences for fairness. Copyright 2004, Oxford University Press.
Download InfoTo our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Oxford University Press in its journal The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization.
Volume (Year): 20 (2004)
Issue (Month): 2 (October)
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK
Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page: http://jleo.oupjournals.org/
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Fabrizio Adriani & Silvia Sonderegger, 2013. "Trust, Trustworthiness and the Consensus Effect: An Evolutionary Approach," Discussion Papers 2013-09, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
- Klick, Jonathan & Parisi, Francesco, 2008. "Social networks, self-denial, and median preferences: Conformity as an evolutionary strategy," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1319-1327, August.
- Nadine Riedel & Hannah Schildberg-Hörisch, 2011.
CESifo Working Paper Series
3450, CESifo Group Munich.
- Riedel, Nadine & Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah, 2011. "Asymmetric obligations," FZID Discussion Papers 28-2011, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
- Nadine Riedel & Hannah Schildberg-Hoerisch, 2011. "Asymmetric Obligations," Working Papers 1110, Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation.
- Bonatti, Luigi, 2008. "Cultural relativism and ideological policy makers in a general equilibrium model with for-profit and non-profit enterprises," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 1-15, March.
- Felix Bierbrauer & Nick Netzer, 2012.
"Mechanism design and intentions,"
ECON - Working Papers
066, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Aug 2012.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.