Stare decisis: Rhetoric and substance
AbstractStare decisis allows common law to develop gradually and incrementally. We show how judge-made law can steadily evolve and tend to increase efficiency even in the absence of new information. Judges' opinions must argue that their decisions are consistent with precedent: this is the more costly, the greater the innovation they are introducing. As a result, each judge effects a cautious marginal change in the law. Alternative models in which precedents are either strictly obeyed or totally discarded would instead predict abrupt large swings in legal rules. Thus we find that the evolution of case law is grounded not in binary logic fixing judges' constraints, but in costly rhetoric shaping their incentives. We apply this finding to an assessment of the role of analogical reasoning in shaping the joint development of different areas of law.
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 Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra in its series Economics Working Papers with number 1361.
Date of creation: Mar 2009
Date of revision: Apr 2010
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.econ.upf.edu/
Other versions of this item:
- K13 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Tort Law and Product Liability; Forensic Economics
- K40 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - General
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.:
- Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2007.
"The Evolution of Common Law,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 115, pages 43-68.
- Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes & Cristian Pop-Eleches & Andrei Shleifer, 2004.
"Judicial Checks and Balances,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(2), pages 445-470, April.
- Rafael LaPorta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silane & Cristian Pop-Eleches & Andrei Shleifer, 2003. "Judicial Checks and Balances," NBER Working Papers 9775, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- La Porta, Rafael & Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio & Pop-Eleches, Cristian & Shleifer, Andrei, 2004. "Judicial Checks and Balances," Scholarly Articles 3451311, Harvard University Department of Economics.
- Gennaioli, Nicola & Perotti, Enrico C, 2011.
"Standardized Enforcement: Access to Justice vs Contractual Innovation,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
8478, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Nicola Gennaioli & Enrico Perotti, 2009. "Standardized enforcement: Access to justice vs contractual innovation," Economics Working Papers 1329, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Jun 2012.
- Nicola Gennaioli & Enrico Perotti, 2012. "Standardized Enforcement: Access to Justice vs. Contractual Innovation," Working Papers 652, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics.
- Nicola Gennaioli & Enrico Perotti & Giacomo A. M. Ponzetto, 2013. "Standardized enforcement: Access to justice vs. contractual innovation," Economics Working Papers 1410, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
- Gennaioli, Nicola & Perotti, Enrico C & Ponzetto, Giacomo AM, 2014. "Standardized Enforcement: Access to Justice vs. Contractual Innovation," CEPR Discussion Papers 9836, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Nicola Gennaioli & Enrico Perotti & Giacomo Ponzetto, 2013. "Standardized Enforcement: Access to Justice vs. Contractual Innovation," Working Papers 747, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics.
- Guerriero, C., 2009. "Democracy, Judicial Attitudes and Heterogeneity: The Civil Versus Common Law Tradition," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0917, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
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.