IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/atlecj/v32y2004i1p39-48.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic efficiency and the common law

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Webster

Abstract

Do legal rules based on the common law in the U.S. result in economically efficient outcomes? Beginning with Posner and Rubin, a substantial amount of literature supports the hypothesis that there is a natural tendency for common law to evolve over time so as to yield economically efficient court rulings. According to this view, disputants will litigate whenever the existing rules are inefficient. If the rules are efficient then no such incentive exists, in which case the legal rules are affirmed. By respectifying the Rubin model as a two-person, non-cooperative, simultaneous-move game, the analysis presented in this paper appears to support the arguments put forth by Landes, Gould, Tullock, and others that there is a general tendency for the disputants to pursue an out-of-court settlement. The analysis also suggests that it may also be in the litigant's best interest to negotiate an out-of-court settlement when the legal rules are efficient if the expected net present value of accident and avoidance costs is less than the litigants' court costs. Finally, it may pay to litigate even when the legal rules are efficient if the expected net present value of accident and avoidance costs is greater than the sum of the litigants' court costs. Copyright International Atlantic Economic Society 2004

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Webster, 2004. "Economic efficiency and the common law," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 32(1), pages 39-48, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:atlecj:v:32:y:2004:i:1:p:39-48
    DOI: 10.1007/BF02298617
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF02298617
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF02298617?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. William M. Landes, 1974. "An Economic Analysis of the Courts," NBER Chapters, in: Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, pages 164-214, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Motta, Massimo & Polo, Michele, 2003. "Leniency programs and cartel prosecution," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 347-379, March.
    2. Kathryn E. Spier, 2003. "“Tied to the Mast”: Most-Favored-Nation Clauses in Settlement Contracts," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 91-120, January.
    3. Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci & Bruno Deffains, 2007. "Uncertainty of Law and the Legal Process," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 163(4), pages 627-656, December.
    4. Fotis, Panagiotis & Tselekounis, Markos, 2020. "Optimal Reduction of Cartel Fines induced by the Settlement Procedure," MPRA Paper 99154, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Bruno Deffains & Roberto Galbiati & Sebastien Rouillon, 2009. "Punishment should fit the crime: an assessment of the French reform of minimum mandatory penalties," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 8(3), pages 161-175, December.
    6. Peter Van Wijck & Ben Van Velthoven, 2000. "An Economic Analysis of the American and the Continental Rule for Allocating Legal Costs," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 115-125, March.
    7. Argenton, Cedric & Wang, Xiaoyu, 2020. "Litigation and Settlement under Loss Aversion," Other publications TiSEM b6c48abc-9b47-4c3b-848b-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. Leonardo Felli & Alessandro Riboni & Luca Anderlini, 2007. "Statute Law or Case Law?," 2007 Meeting Papers 952, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    9. Navin Kartik & Andreas Kleiner & Richard Van Weelden, 2021. "Delegation in Veto Bargaining," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(12), pages 4046-4087, December.
    10. Hyde, Charles E. & Williams, Philip L., 2002. "Necessary costs and expenditure incentives under the English rule," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 133-152, August.
    11. Alain Marciano & Giovanni Ramello & Hans-Bernd Schaefer, 2020. "Foreword, special issue: economic analysis of litigations 2," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 1-5, August.
    12. Brishti Guha, 2024. "Plea bargaining when juror effort is costly," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 78(3), pages 945-977, November.
    13. Richard Boylan & Cheryl Xiaoning Long, 2000. "Size, Monitoring and Plea Rate: An Examination of United States Attorneys," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 0089, Econometric Society.
    14. Nathalie Chappe & Raphaël Giraud, 2013. "Confidence, Optimism and Litigation: A Litigation Model under Ambiguity," Working Papers hal-04287896, HAL.
    15. Alain Marciano, 2018. "Posner, Richard," Post-Print hal-02306799, HAL.
    16. James Andreoni & Ray D Madoff, 2007. "Overconfdence and Judicial Discretion: Do Winner-take-all Rules Discourage Pre-trial Agreement?," Levine's Bibliography 843644000000000198, UCLA Department of Economics.
    17. Andrew F. Daughety & Jennifer F. Reinganum, 1995. "Keeping Society in the Dark: On the Admissibility of Pretrial Negotiations as Evidence in Court," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(2), pages 203-221, Summer.
    18. Stefan Voigt, 2016. "Determinants of judicial efficiency: a survey," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 183-208, October.
    19. Choné, Philippe & Souam, Saïd & Vialfont, Arnold, 2014. "On the optimal use of commitment decisions under European competition law," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 169-179.
    20. David Bjerk, 2021. "Socially Optimal Plea Bargaining With Costly Trials And Bayesian Juries," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(1), pages 263-279, January.

    More about this item

    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:kap:atlecj:v:32:y:2004:i:1:p:39-48. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.