IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Economic Evaluation of Insolvency Procedures in the United Kingdom: Does the 1986 Insolvency Act Satisfy the Creditors' Bargain?


  • Webb, David C


The creditors' bargain view of insolvency law argues that solvency stats rights should be preserved in insolvency states. It argues that insolvency law should be an extension of commercial law. This paper examines the Insolvency Act (1986) in the United Kingdom from the perspective of the creditor's bargain. It argues that the receivership systems supplemented with the new administration procedures preserves initial rights. The paper argues that this is a structure conducive to economic efficiency. It casts doubt on whether we need a formal reorganization procedure, like Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (1978), which allows a third party to arbitrate and encourages inefficient distributional games. Copyright 1991 by Royal Economic Society.

Suggested Citation

  • Webb, David C, 1991. "An Economic Evaluation of Insolvency Procedures in the United Kingdom: Does the 1986 Insolvency Act Satisfy the Creditors' Bargain?," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(1), pages 139-157, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxecpp:v:43:y:1991:i:1:p:139-57

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to JSTOR subscribers. See for details.

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Sudipto Bhattacharya & Dilip Mookherjee, 1986. "Portfolio Choice in Research and Development," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(4), pages 594-605, Winter.
    2. Giacomo Bonanno, 1987. "Location Choice, Product Proliferation and Entry Deterrence," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 54(1), pages 37-45.
    3. Brander, James A & Eaton, Jonathan, 1984. "Product Line Rivalry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(3), pages 323-334, June.
    4. Champsaur, Paul & Rochet, Jean-Charles, 1989. "Multiproduct Duopolists," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 533-557, May.
    5. Avinash Dixit, 1979. "A Model of Duopoly Suggesting a Theory of Entry Barriers," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 20-32, Spring.
    6. Wernerfelt, Birger, 1986. "Product Line Rivalry: Note," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 842-844, September.
    7. Anderson, Simon P & de Palma, Andre, 1992. "Multiproduct Firms: A Nested Logit Approach," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 261-276, September.
    8. Eric Maskin & John Riley, 1984. "Monopoly with Incomplete Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(2), pages 171-196, Summer.
    9. Lambertini, Luca & Orsini, Raimondello, 2000. "Process and product innovation in a vertically differentiated monopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 333-337, September.
    10. Klemperer, P., 1992. "Competition when Consumers Have Switching Costs: An Overview," Economics Series Working Papers 99142, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    11. Jaskold Gabszewicz, Jean & Shaked, Avner & Sutton, John & Thisse, Jacques-Francois, 1986. "Segmenting the market: The monopolist's optimal product mix," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 273-289, August.
    12. Paul Klemperer & A. Jorge Padilla, 1997. "Do Firms' Product Lines Include Too Many Varieties?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 28(3), pages 472-488, Autumn.
    13. Rosenkranz, Stephanie, 1996. "Simultaneous Choice of Process and Product Innovation," CEPR Discussion Papers 1321, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Mussa, Michael & Rosen, Sherwin, 1978. "Monopoly and product quality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 301-317, August.
    15. MacDonald, Glenn M & Slivinski, Alan, 1987. "The Simple Analytics of Competitive Equilibrium with Multiproduct Firms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 941-953, December.
    16. De Fraja, Giovanni, 1994. "A General Characterization of Multiproduct Cournot Competition," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 171-183, April.
    17. Klemperer, Paul, 1992. "Equilibrium Product Lines: Competing Head-to-Head May Be Less Competitive," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(4), pages 740-755, September.
    18. Panzar, John C., 1989. "Technological determinants of firm and industry structure," Handbook of Industrial Organization,in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 3-59 Elsevier.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Francesca Cornelli & Leonardo Felli, "undated". "Revenue Efficiency and Change of Control: The Case of Bankruptcy," Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research Working Papers 18-98, Wharton School Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research.
    2. Michelle J. White, 2005. "Economic Analysis of Corporate and Personal Bankruptcy Law," NBER Working Papers 11536, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Detragiache, Enrica, 1995. "Adverse selection and the costs of financial distress," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 1(3-4), pages 347-365, April.
    4. Hudson, John, 1995. "The case against secured lending," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 47-63, January.
    5. Araujo, Aloisio P. & Ferreira, Rafael V.X. & Funchal, Bruno, 2012. "The Brazilian bankruptcy law experience," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 994-1004.
    6. Michelle White, 2002. "Sovereigns in Distress: Do They Need Bankruptcy?," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 33(1), pages 287-320.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:oxecpp:v:43:y:1991:i:1:p:139-57. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.