IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jleorg/v13y1997i1p50-73.html

Disclosure of Information in Regulatory Proceedings

Author

Listed:
  • Lewis, Tracy R
  • Poitevin, Michel

Abstract

This paper examines how different rules for presentation of evidence affect verdicts in regulatory hearings and the welfare and efficiency properties these procedures exhibit. The hearing is modeled as a game of imperfect information in which the respondent is privately informed about validity of his case. The respondent may present evidence to support his case. The commission observes whether the respondent presents evidence, and the nature of the evidence presented to update its beliefs about the validity of the case. Based on these beliefs and the standard of proof for conviction, the commission decides whether the respondent's application should be accepted or rejected. The sequential equilibria of this game are examined for their implications regarding (i) the desirability of making disclosure of evidence mandatory rather than voluntary, (ii) the burden of proof undertaken by the respondent to prove his case, and (iii) the impact of information accuracy and disclosure costs on the outcome of the hearing and the welfare of the respondents. Ce papier étudie comment différentes règles pour la production de preuves peuvent influencer la prise de décision d'une agence de réglementation ainsi que les propriétés de bien-être de ces règles. Une firme réglementée possède une information privée quant à la validité de sa requête et peut produire des éléments de preuve pour la soutenir. Une agence de réglementation observe la preuve présentée par la firme et se forme alors une opinion sur la validité de la requête. Les équilibres de ce jeu sont caractérisés et les points suivants sont étudiés : (i) la production de certains éléments doit-elle être obligatoire ou volontaire ? (ii) quelles sont les conséquences du fardeau de la preuve que la firme doit supporter ? (iii) quel est l'impact de la précision de la preuve et des coûts associés à sa produciton sur la décision de l'agence et le bien-être de la firme ?
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of thi
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Lewis, Tracy R & Poitevin, Michel, 1997. "Disclosure of Information in Regulatory Proceedings," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 50-73, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jleorg:v:13:y:1997:i:1:p:50-73
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sinclair-Desgagne, Bernard & Gozlan, Estelle, 2003. "A theory of environmental risk disclosure," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2, Supple), pages 377-393, March.
    2. Turkay, Evsen, 2011. "Evidence disclosure and severity of punishments," MPRA Paper 31504, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Froeb, Luke M. & Kobayashi, Bruce H., 2001. "Evidence production in adversarial vs. inquisitorial regimes," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 267-272, February.
    4. Dominique Demougin & Claude Fluet, 2008. "Rules of proof, courts, and incentives," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(1), pages 20-40, March.
    5. Lehmann, Markus A., 2002. "Error minimization and deterrence in agency control," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 373-391, May.
    6. Claude Fluet, 2003. "Enforcing Contracts: Should Courts Seek the Truth?," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 159(1), pages 49-64, March.
    7. Lagerlof, Johan N.M. & Heidhues, Paul, 2005. "On the desirability of an efficiency defense in merger control," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 803-827, December.
    8. Che, Yeon-Koo & Severinov, Sergei, 2007. "Lawyer Advising in Evidence Disclosure," MPRA Paper 6101, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Arnaud Dellis & Mandar Oak, 2020. "Subpoena power and informational lobbying," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(2), pages 188-234, April.
    10. McCannon, Bryan C., 2010. "Homicide trials in Classical Athens," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 46-51, March.
    11. Mikhail Drugov & Marta Troya‐Martinez, 2019. "Vague lies and lax standards of proof: On the law and economics of advice," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 298-315, April.
    12. Amy Farmer & Paul Pecorino, 2005. "Civil Litigation with Mandatory Discovery and Voluntary Transmission of Private Information," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 137-159, January.
    13. Claude Fluet, 2009. "Accuracy Versus Falsification Costs: The Optimal Amount of Evidence under Different Procedures," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 134-156, May.
    14. Yves Sprumont, 1998. "On the Game-Theoretic Structure of Public-Good Economies," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 26(4), pages 455-472.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation

    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:oup:jleorg:v:13:y:1997:i:1:p:50-73. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jleo .

    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.