Judicial Errors, Legal Standards and Innovative Activity
We analyze the effects of judicial errors on the innovative activity of firms. Successful research investment allows to take a new action that may be ex-post welfare enhancing or welfare decreasing (illegal). Deterrence in this setting works by affecting both the incentives to invest in research and the ex-post choice of the action (marginal deterrence). The two goals may contrast each other and their relative importance shapes the optimal policy. For increasing probabilities of social harm, the enforcer initially promotes research and disregards marginal deterrence: in this case no accuracy is chosen and the policy adopts first a per-se legality and then a (moderately enforced) per-se illegality rule. Conversely, for higher likelihood of social harm, the enforcer favors marginal deterrence eliciting the ex-post efficient actions at the cost of depressing firm’s investment: the optimal policy calls for positive .nes and improved accuracy, with a stronger effort to reduce type-I than type-II errors and the adoption of asymmetric protocols of investigation. Improved accuracy allows to discriminate between beneficial and harmful actions, an instance of effect-based legal standard.
|Date of creation:||20 Feb 2008|
|Date of revision:||04 Jun 2010|
|Publication status:||Published in International Review of Law and Economics, 2014, 40, pp. 36-50 with the title "Antitrust in Innovative Industries: The Optimal Legal Standards"|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: I-80126 Napoli|
Phone: +39 081 - 675372
Fax: +39 081 - 675372
Web page: http://www.csef.it/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Jordi Gual & Anne Perrot & Michele Polo & Patrick Rey & Klaus Schmidt & Rune Stenbacka, 2006. "An Economic Approach to Article 82," CPI Journal, Competition Policy International, vol. 2.
- Giovanni Immordino & Marco Pagano & Michele Polo, 2006. "Norm Flexibility and Private Initiative," CSEF Working Papers 163, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy, revised 01 Nov 2006.
- Steven Shavell & A. Mitchell Polinsky, 2000. "The Economic Theory of Public Enforcement of Law," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(1), pages 45-76, March.
- Png, I. P. L., 1986. "Optimal subsidies and damages in the presence of judicial error," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 101-105, June.
- Gary S. Becker, 1974. "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach," NBER Chapters,in: Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, pages 1-54 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Kaplow, Louis & Shavell, Steven, 1996.
"Accuracy in the Assessment of Damages,"
Journal of Law and Economics,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(1), pages 191-210, April.
- Louis Kaplow & Steven Shavell, 1993. "Accuracy in the Assessment of Damages," NBER Working Papers 4287, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Kaplow, Louis, 1994. "The Value of Accuracy in Adjudication: An Economic Analysis," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(1), pages 307-401, January.
- Kaplow, Louis & Shavell, Steven, 1994. "Accuracy in the Determination of Liability," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(1), pages 1-15, April.Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)