IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jleorg/v33y2017i1p173-192..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incentives to Acquire Information under Mandatory versus Voluntary Disclosure

Author

Listed:
  • Urs Schweizer

Abstract

This article examines the incentives of a party to acquire information prior to negotiating contractual terms with a second party under two different legal regimes: mandatory versus voluntary disclosure. By assumption, information can only truthfully be disclosed but, under voluntary disclosure, having found no evidence cannot credibly be communicated. If the information-acquiring party has all the bargaining power, then, under voluntary disclosure, she will invest more in information acquisition than is welfare maximizing in many situations. At lesser bargaining power, however, this need not be the case. If information directly benefits the non-acquiring party only, then incentives to acquire under voluntary disclosure are less than under mandatory disclosure, and the latter leads to less than welfare-maximizing acquisition. Most results are independent of the underlying bargaining structure as mainly use of constraints is made that hold for equilibrium payoffs from any bargaining game. (JEL K12, D86)

Suggested Citation

  • Urs Schweizer, 2017. "Incentives to Acquire Information under Mandatory versus Voluntary Disclosure," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 173-192.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jleorg:v:33:y:2017:i:1:p:173-192.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jleo/eww007
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Arnaud Dellis & Mandar Oak, 2020. "Subpoena power and informational lobbying," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(2), pages 188-234, April.
    2. Claude Fluet & Thomas Lanzi, 2021. "Cross-Examination," Working Papers of BETA 2021-40, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    3. Dahm, Matthias & González, Paula & Porteiro, Nicolás, 2018. "The enforcement of mandatory disclosure rules," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 21-32.
    4. Schmitz, Patrick W., 2021. "Contracting under adverse selection: Certifiable vs. uncertifiable information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 100-112.
    5. Claude Fluet & Thomas Lanzi, 2018. "Adversarial Persuasion with Cross-Examination," Cahiers de recherche 1811, Centre de recherche sur les risques, les enjeux économiques, et les politiques publiques.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • K12 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Contract Law
    • D86 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Economics of Contract Law

    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:33:y:2017:i:1:p:173-192.. 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.