IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/lawdev/v10y2017i2p275-303n3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Profit, Persuasion, and Fidelity: Why People Follow the Rule of Law

Author

Listed:
  • Ilg Michael

    (Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta)

Abstract

This article proposes that there are three types of individual interest perception that explain adherence to the rule of law. The first level, “profit,” refers to tangible individual gain, whether in the form of economic enrichment or the accumulation of political power. The second layer of interest, “persuasion,” involves social norms and reputation. In this second level, individuals adhere to a rule not because of the threat of government sanction or reward, but rather because of intangible concerns for reputation and social status. Finally, the third layer of interest involves individuals forgoing tangible benefit for the sake of fidelity to a constitutional order or a shared set of beliefs. A potential advantage of the three-interest view is that it provides for an accessible descriptive framework that captures the broad nature of the rule of law, moving from the small bribe for a local official to the question of whether a constitution will constrain the powerful. The three-interest view also aligns well with modern developments in experimental and behavioural economics and suggests future lines of research into how individuals and groups navigate from self-interest toward cooperation and fidelity.

Suggested Citation

  • Ilg Michael, 2017. "Profit, Persuasion, and Fidelity: Why People Follow the Rule of Law," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 275-303, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:lawdev:v:10:y:2017:i:2:p:275-303:n:3
    DOI: 10.1515/ldr-2017-0015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ldr-2017-0015
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ldr-2017-0015?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tanzi, Vito, 2008. "The future of fiscal federalism," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Processes and Governance SP II 2008-03, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    2. Gneezy, Uri & Rustichini, Aldo, 2000. "A Fine is a Price," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(1), pages 1-17, January.
    3. Raymond Fisman & Edward Miguel, 2007. "Corruption, Norms, and Legal Enforcement: Evidence from Diplomatic Parking Tickets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115(6), pages 1020-1048, December.
    4. Randall Peerenboom, 2002. "Social networks, rule of law and economic growth in China: The elusive pursuit of the right combination of private and public ordering," Global Economic Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(2), pages 1-19.
    5. Yingyi Qian & Barry R. Weingast, 1997. "Federalism as a Commitment to Reserving Market Incentives," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 83-92, Fall.
    6. Wallace Oates, 2005. "Toward A Second-Generation Theory of Fiscal Federalism," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 12(4), pages 349-373, August.
    7. Chubb, John E., 1985. "The Political Economy of Federalism," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 79(4), pages 994-1015, December.
    8. Abhijit V. Banerjee & Esther Duflo, 2009. "The Experimental Approach to Development Economics," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 151-178, May.
    9. Charles M. Tiebout, 1956. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(5), pages 416-416.
    10. Tanzi, Vito, 2008. "The future of fiscal federalism," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 705-712, September.
    11. Pranab Bardhan, 1997. "Corruption and Development: A Review of Issues," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 35(3), pages 1320-1346, September.
    12. Steve Lovett & Lee C Simmons & Raja Kali, 1999. "Guanxi Versus the Market: Ethics and Efficiency," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 30(2), pages 231-247, June.
    13. Abbott, Kenneth W & Snidal, Duncan, 2002. "Values and Interests: International Legalization in the Fight against Corruption," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(1), pages 141-178, January.
    14. Michael J. Trebilcock & Ronald J. Daniels, 2008. "Rule of Law Reform and Development," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13032.
    15. Weingast, Barry R, 1995. "The Economic Role of Political Institutions: Market-Preserving Federalism and Economic Development," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 1-31, April.
    16. Robert P. Inman & Daniel L. Rubinfeld, 1997. "Rethinking Federalism," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 43-64, Fall.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Weingast, Barry R., 2009. "Second generation fiscal federalism: The implications of fiscal incentives," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 279-293, May.
    2. Che, Jiahua & Chung, Kim-Sau & Lu, Yang K., 2017. "Decentralization and political career concerns," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 201-210.
    3. Jorge Martinez-Vazquez & Santiago Lago-Peñas & Agnese Sacchi, 2017. "The Impact Of Fiscal Decentralization: A Survey," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1095-1129, September.
    4. Prakash Chandra Jha, 2015. "Theory of fiscal federalism: an analysis," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Springer;Institute for Social and Economic Change, vol. 17(2), pages 241-259, October.
    5. Lars P. Feld & Wolfgang Kerber, 2006. "Mehr-Ebenen Jurisdiktionssysteme: Zur variablen Architektur von Integration," Marburg Working Papers on Economics 200605, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    6. Hans-Günter Krüsselberg, 2005. "Milton Friedman und der Wissenschaftliche Beirat für Familienfragen Elternkompetenz und Anteilscheine am Schulbudget – Gedanken über Reformpotenziale," Marburg Working Papers on Economics 200506, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    7. Kessing, Sebastian G. & Konrad, Kai A. & Kotsogiannis, Christos, 2006. "Federal tax autonomy and the limits of cooperation," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 317-329, March.
    8. Roberto Ezcurra & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, 2017. "Does ethnic segregation matter for spatial inequality?," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(6), pages 1149-1178.
    9. Evgeny N. Timushev, 2019. "Federal Intergovernmental Transfers and the Level of Intraregional Fiscal Decentralization in Russia," Finansovyj žhurnal — Financial Journal, Financial Research Institute, Moscow 125375, Russia, issue 6, pages 27-42, December.
    10. Robert Inman & Daniel Rubinfeld, 2002. "Subsidiarity, governance, and EU economic policy," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 3(04), pages 3-11, October.
    11. Trillas, Francesc, 2010. "Electricity and telecoms reforms in the EU: Insights from the economics of federalism," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 66-76, June.
    12. Seppo Honkapohja & Frank Westermann, 2009. "Rethinking Subsidiarity in the EU: Economic Principles," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Seppo Honkapohja & Frank Westermann (ed.), Designing the European Model, chapter 10, pages 331-365, Palgrave Macmillan.
    13. Andrew T. Young, 2021. "The political economy of feudalism in medieval Europe," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 127-143, March.
    14. Zhu, Z. & Krug, B., 2005. "Is China a Leviathan?," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2005-087-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    15. Christian Lessmann, 2009. "Fiscal Decentralization and Regional Disparity: Evidence from Cross-Section and Panel Data," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(10), pages 2455-2473, October.
    16. William M. Shobe & Dallas Burtraw, 2012. "Rethinking Environmental Federalism In A Warming World," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(04), pages 1-33.
    17. Sonin, Konstantin, 2010. "Provincial protectionism," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 111-122, June.
    18. Xiaodong Chen & Haoming Mi & Peng Zhou, 2024. "Whether to decentralize and how to decentralize? The optimal fiscal federalism in an endogenous growth model," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(29), pages 3499-3516, June.
    19. Lu Ming & Zhao Chen & Yongqin Wang & Yan Zhang & Yuan Zhang & Changyuan Luo, 2013. "China’s Economic Development," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14502.
    20. Lars P. Feld & Ekkehard A. Köhler & Leonardo Palhuca & Christoph A. Schaltegger, 2021. "Federalism and Foreign Direct Investment - An Empirical Analysis," CESifo Working Paper Series 9120, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    rule of law; development;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:lawdev:v:10:y:2017:i:2:p:275-303:n:3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.