Private versus Public Enforcement of Fines
AbstractThe present paper analyzes the competitive, monopolistic, and public enforcement of fines allowing for the costs of enforcement to differ by the choice of the enforcer. There are a number of reasons to expect such differences. First, the benefits from coordinating enforcement -- for example, avoiding duplication of investigative effort and exploiting economies of scale in information processing -- are obtained under public enforcement and monopolistic enforcement, but not under competitive enforcement. Second, the profit motive might be imagined to lead to lower costs under either form of private enforcement relative to public enforcement. Third, when the revenue from fines under public enforcement is not sufficient to finance enforcement costs, there may be a deadweight burden incurred in making up the deficit from other sources. Conversely, if the fine revenue exceeds enforcement costs, the effective cost of enforcement would be lower. On balance, these considerations suggest that monopolistic enforcement may be cheaper than competitive enforcement, but that public enforcement could be more or less expensive than private enforcement.
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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 0338.
Date of creation: Apr 1979
Date of revision:
Publication status: published as Polinsky, A. Mitchell. "Private versus Public Enforcement of Fines." The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. IX, No. 1, (January 1980), pp. 105-127.
Contact details of provider:
Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Polinsky, A. Mitchell & Shavell, Steven, 2001.
"Corruption and optimal law enforcement,"
Journal of Public Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 1-24, July.
- Mohamed Jellal & Nuno Garoupa, 1999. "Optimal law enforcement under asymmetric information," Economics Working Papers 401, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
- A. Mitchell Polinsky & Yeon-Koo Che, 1991.
"Decoupling Liability: Optimal Incentives for Care and Litigation,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
The RAND Corporation, vol. 22(4), pages 562-570, Winter.
- A. Mitchell Polinsky & Yeon-Koo Che, 1991. "Decoupling Liability: Optimal Incentives for Care and Litigation," NBER Working Papers 3634, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Steven Shavell, 2003. "Economic Analysis of the General Structure of the Law," NBER Working Papers 9699, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Anna Rita Germani, 2007. "The Environmental Enforcement in the Civil and the Common Law Systems. A Case on the Economic Effects of Legal Institutions," Quaderni DSEMS 22-2007, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche, Matematiche e Statistiche, Universita' di Foggia.
- A. Mitchell Polinsky, 1986. "Detrebling versus Decoupling Antitrust Damages: Lessons from the Theory of Enforcement," NBER Working Papers 1846, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Nuno Garoupa & Mohamed Jellal, 2002.
"A Note on Optimal Law Enforcement under Asymmetric Information,"
European Journal of Law and Economics,
Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 5-13, July.
- Jellal, Mohamed & Garoupa, Nuno, 2002. "A Note on Optimal Law Enforcement under Asymmetric Information," MPRA Paper 38460, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell, 1982.
"The Optimal Use of Fines and Imprisonment,"
NBER Working Papers
0932, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Elizabeth Robinson, 2004.
"Wanted dead and alive: Are hunting and protection of endangered species compatible?,"
Economics Series Working Papers
WPS/2004-20, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- Elizabeth J. Z. Robinson, 2004. "Wanted dead and alive: Are hunting and protection of endangered species compatible?," CSAE Working Paper Series 2004-20, Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford.
- Elizabeth Robinson, 2004. "Wanted dead and alive: Are hunting and protection of endangered species compatible?," Development and Comp Systems 0409066, EconWPA.
- Steven Shavell, 1981. "The Social versus the Private Incentive to Bring Suit in a Costly Legal System," NBER Working Papers 0741, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.