Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Testimony
AbstractAn arbiter can decide a case on the basis of his priors, or the two parties to the conflict may present further evidence. The parties may misrepresent evidence in their favor at a cost. At equilibrium the two parties never testify together. When the evidence is much in favor of one party, this party testifies. When the evidence is close to the prior mean, no party testifies. We compare this outcome under a purely adversarial procedure with the outcome under a purely inquisitorial procedure (Emons and Fluet 2009). We provide sufficient conditions on when one procedure is better than the other one.
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 Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft in its series Diskussionsschriften with number dp0904.
Date of creation: Sep 2009
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Schanzeneckstr. 1, PF 8573, CH-3001 Bern
Phone: 0041 31 631 45 06
Fax: 41 31 631 37 83
Web page: http://www.vwi.unibe.ch/content/publikationen/index_eng.html
More information through EDIRC
evidence production; procedure; costly state falsification; adversarial; inquisitorial;
Other versions of this item:
- D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
- K41 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Litigation Process
- K42 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
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.:
- Emons, Winand & Fluet, Claude, 2009.
"Non-comparative versus Comparative Advertising as a Quality Signal,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
7109, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Emons, Winand & Fluet, Claude, 2011. "Non-comparative versus Comparative Advertising as a Quality Signal," Annual Conference 2011 (Frankfurt, Main): The Order of the World Economy - Lessons from the Crisis 48713, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
- Winand Emons & Claude Fluet, 2009. "Non-comparative versus Comparative Advertising as a Quality Signal," Cahiers de recherche 0902, CIRPEE.
- Winand Emons & Claude Fluet, 2008. "Non-comparative versus Comparative Advertising as a Quality Signal," Diskussionsschriften dp0805, Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft.
- Dominique Demougin & Claude Fluet, 2006.
"Rules of Proof, Courts, and Incentives,"
Cahiers de recherche
- Palumbo, Giuliana, 2001. "Trial procedures and optimal limits on proof-taking10," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 309-327, September.
- Kyle Bagwell & Garey Ramey, 1989.
"Oligopoly Limit Pricing,"
829, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Farmer, Amy & Pecorino, Paul, 1999. " Legal Expenditure as a Rent-Seeking Game," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 100(3-4), pages 271-88, September.
- Emons, Winand & Fluet, Claude, 2007.
"Accuracy versus Falsification Costs: The Optimal Amount of Evidence under Different Procedures,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
6150, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Claude Fluet, 2009. "Accuracy Versus Falsification Costs: The Optimal Amount of Evidence under Different Procedures," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 134-156, May.
- Winand Emons & Claude Fluet, 2007. "Accuracy versus Falsification Costs: the Optimal Amount of Evidence under Different Procedures," Cahiers de recherche 0703, CIRPEE.
- Winand Emons & Claude Fluet, 2007. "Accuracy versus Falsification Costs: The optimal Amount of Evidence under different Procedures," Diskussionsschriften dp0702, Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft.
- Navin Kartik, 2009.
"Strategic Communication with Lying Costs,"
Review of Economic Studies,
Oxford University Press, vol. 76(4), pages 1359-1395.
- Christian Schultz, 1997.
"Limit Pricing when Incumbents have Conflicting Interests,"
CIE Discussion Papers
1997-17, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. Centre for Industrial Economics.
- Schultz, Christian, 1999. "Limit pricing when incumbents have conflicting interests," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 801-825, August.
- Fluet, Claude & Garella, Paolo G., 2002.
"Advertising and prices as signals of quality in a regime of price rivalry,"
International Journal of Industrial Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 20(7), pages 907-930, September.
- Claude Fluet & Paolo G. Garella, 1999. "Advertising and Prices as Signals of Quality in a Regime of Price Rivalry," Cahiers de recherche du DÃ©partement des sciences Ã©conomiques, UQAM 9903, Université du Québec à Montréal, Département des sciences économiques.
- Mark N. Hertzendorf & Per Baltzer Overgaard, 2001. "Price Competition and Advertising Signals: Signaling by Competing Senders," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(4), pages 621-662, December.
- Daughety, Andrew F & Reinganum, Jennifer F, 2000. "On the Economics of Trials: Adversarial Process, Evidence, and Equilibrium Bias," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 365-94, October.
- Lacker, J.M., 1989.
"Optimal Contracts Under Costly State Falsification,"
Purdue University Economics Working Papers
956, Purdue University, Department of Economics.
- Lacker, Jeffrey M & Weinberg, John A, 1989. "Optimal Contracts under Costly State Falsification," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(6), pages 1345-63, December.
- Hyun Song Shin, 1998. "Adversarial and Inquisitorial Procedures in Arbitration," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 29(2), pages 378-405, Summer.
- Froeb, Luke M & Kobayashi, Bruce H, 1996. "Naive, Biased, Yet Bayesian: Can Juries Interpret Selectively Produced Evidence?," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 257-76, April.
- Froeb, Luke M. & Kobayashi, Bruce H., 2001. "Evidence production in adversarial vs. inquisitorial regimes," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 267-272, February.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Silvia Glusstein-Gerber).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.