A key issue in the design of a legal system is the choice of the mechanism aggregating preferences over the level of deterrence. While under Case law appellate judges’ biases offset one another at the cost of volatility of precedents, under Statute law the Legislator chooses certain rules that are biased only when bribes are accepted: i.e., when political institutions are weak and/or the preference heterogeneity is sufficiently high. Thus, only in the last scenario, Case law can outperform Statute law. Also, institutions fostering limited discretion by lower courts improve the performance of Case law. Instrumental variables estimates based on historical data from 156 countries confirm this prediction.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. 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.
Find related papers by JEL classification: K40 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - General Z1 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government P16 - Economic Systems - - Capitalist Systems - - - Political Economy of Capitalism
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
References listed on IDEAS 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.:
Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silane & Andrei Shleifer & Robert Vishny, 1998.
"The Quality of Goverment,"
NBER Working Papers
6727, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Wacziarg, Romain & Alesina, Alberto & Devleeschauwer, Arnaud & Easterly, William & Kurlat, Sergio, 2002.
"Fractionalization,"
Research Papers
1744, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
[Downloadable!]
Alberto Alesina & Arnaud Devleeschauwer & William Easterly & Sergio Kurlat & Romain Wacziarg, 2003.
"Fractionalization,"
NBER Working Papers
9411, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Leonardo Felli & Antonio Merlo, 2001.
"Endogenous Lobbying,"
PIER Working Paper Archive
04-043, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 01 Oct 2004.
[Downloadable!]
Felli, L. & Merlo, A., 2000.
"Endogenous Lobbying,"
Working Papers
00-04, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
[Downloadable!]
Leonardo Felli & Antonio Merlo, .
"Endogenous Lobbying,"
CARESS Working Papres
00-03, University of Pennsylvania Center for Analytic Research and Economics in the Social Sciences.
[Downloadable!]
Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2008.
"Judicial Fact Discretion,"
Journal of Legal Studies,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(1), pages 1-35, 01.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Other versions:
Daron Acemoglu & Simon Johnson & James A. Robinson & Pierre Yared, 2008.
"Income and Democracy,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 808-42, June.
[Downloadable!]
Other versions:
Daron Acemoglu & Simon Johnson & James Robinson & Pierre Yared, 2005.
"Income and Democracy,"
NBER Working Papers
11205, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Acemoglu, Daron & Johnson, Simon & Robinson, James A & Yared, Pierre, 2005.
"Income and Democracy,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
5273, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
DESMET, Klaus & LE BRETON, Michel & ORTUNO-ORTIN, Ignacio & WEBER, Shlomo, 2006.
"Nation formation and genetic diversity,"
CORE Discussion Papers
2006095, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
[Downloadable!]