IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/van/wpaper/0308.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Markets, Torts and Social Inefficiency

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew F. Daughety

    (Department of Economics and Law School, Vanderbilt University)

  • Jennifer F. Reinganum

    (Department of Economics and Law School, Vanderbilt University)

Abstract

In this paper we examine the nexus between product markets and the legal system. We examine a model wherein oligopolists produce differentiated products that also have a safety attribute. Consumption of these products may lead to harm (to consumers and/or third parties), lawsuits, and compensation, either via settlement or trial. Firm-level costs reflect both R&D and production activities, as well as liability-related costs. Compensation is incomplete, both because of inefficiencies in the bargaining process and (possibly) because of statutorily-established limits on awards. We compare the market equilibrium safety effort and output levels to what a planner would choose. We consider two planners, one of whom is able to set safety standards, but takes the market equilibrium output as given, and one of whom can control both safety effort and output. We argue that the former type of planner is the better representative of what the tort system might do if faced with deciding upon a safety effort standard. We examine two measures of competitiveness: the number of firms, and the degree of substitutability of the products. Holding substitutability constant, an increase in the number of firms always reduces equilibrium safety effort. On the other hand, holding the number of firms constant, increasing substitutability first decreases, but ultimately increases, the equilibrium safety effort. Non-cooperative firms under-provide safety effort (relative to the restricted social planner¼s preferred level) when the products are relatively poor substitutes. However, when the products are sufficiently good substitutes, the non-cooperative firms over-provide safety effort. Moreover, the more firms there are in the industry, the less substitutable their products need to be in order for the equilibrium to result in over-provision of safety effort. Under-provision of safety becomes more typical as the rate of third-party exposure increases or as the amount of third-party uncompensated losses increases. Finally, we use the settlement subgame to examine the effects of alternative tort reform policies on the equilibrium provision of safety and welfare. In the presence of third-party victims, welfare can be increased even though changes in such policies may increase expected trial costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew F. Daughety & Jennifer F. Reinganum, 2003. "Markets, Torts and Social Inefficiency," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 0308, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:van:wpaper:0308
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/pubs/VUECON/vu03-w08.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2003
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daughety, Andrew F & Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1995. "Product Safety: Liability, R&D, and Signaling," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1187-1206, December.
    2. Marcel Boyer & Donatella Porrini, 2004. "Modelling the choice between regulation and liability in terms of social welfare," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 590-612, August.
    3. Lewis, Tracy R. & Sappington, David E. M., 1999. "Using decoupling and deep pockets to mitigate judgment-proof problems1," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 275-293, June.
    4. Daniel F. Spulber, 1989. "Regulation and Markets," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262192756, April.
    5. Lucian Arye Bebchuk, 1984. "Litigation and Settlement under Imperfect Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(3), pages 404-415, Autumn.
    6. A. Mitchell Polinsky & William P. Rogerson, 1983. "Products Liability, Consumer Misperceptions, and Market Power," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(2), pages 581-589, Autumn.
    7. Hamada, Koichi, 1976. "Liability Rules and Income Distribution in Product Liability," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(1), pages 228-234, March.
    8. Michael Spence, 1977. "Consumer Misperceptions, Product Failure and Producer Liability," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 44(3), pages 561-572.
    9. A. Mitchell Polinsky, 1980. "Strict Liability versus Negligence in a Market Setting," NBER Working Papers 0420, 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. Ram Singh, 2009. "RISK, INFORMATIONAL ASYMMETRY AND PRODUCT LIABILITY: An Enquiry Into Conflicting Objectives," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 89-112, February.
    2. Andrew F. Daughety & Jennifer F. Reinganum, 2013. "Economic analysis of products liability: Theory," Chapters, in: Jennifer H. Arlen (ed.), Research Handbook on the Economics of Torts, chapter 3, pages 69-96, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Bruce Hay & Kathryn E. Spier, 2005. "Manufacturer Liability for Harms Caused by Consumers to Others," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1700-1711, December.
    4. Bruce Hay & Kathryn E. Spier, 2004. "Manufacturer Liability for Harms Caused by Consumers to Others," NBER Working Papers 10972, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Tim Friehe & Cat Lam Pham & Thomas J. Miceli, 2022. "Product Liability and Strategic Delegation: Endogenous Manager Incentives Promote Strict Liability," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 61(2), pages 149-169, September.
    6. Andrzej Baniak & Peter Grajzl, 2016. "Controlling Product Risks when Consumers Are Heterogeneously Overconfident: Producer Liability versus Minimum-Quality-Standard Regulation," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 172(2), pages 274-304, June.
    7. Andrzej Baniak & Peter Grajzl, 2014. "Controlling Product Risks when Consumers are Heterogeneously Overconfident: Producer Liability vs. Minimum Quality Standard Regulation," CESifo Working Paper Series 5003, CESifo.
    8. Eric Langlais & Andreea Cosnita-Langlais, 2022. "Endogenous market structures, product liability, and the scope of product differentiation," EconomiX Working Papers 2022-18, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    9. Tim Friehe & Christoph Rößler & Xiaoge Dong, 2020. "Liability for Third-Party Harm When Harm-Inflicting Consumers Are Present Biased," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 22(1), pages 75-104.
    10. Thomas J. Miceli & Kathleen Segerson & Suo Wang, 2015. "Products Liability When Consumers Vary In Their Susceptibility To Harm And May Misperceive Risk," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 33(3), pages 468-476, July.
    11. Baumann, Florian & Friehe, Tim, 2021. "Products liability, consumer misperceptions, and the allocation of consumers to firms," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    12. Palumbo, Giuliana & Iossa, Elisabetta, 2002. "Lender liability in the Consumer Credit Market," FGV EPGE Economics Working Papers (Ensaios Economicos da EPGE) 451, EPGE Brazilian School of Economics and Finance - FGV EPGE (Brazil).
    13. Florian Baumann & Tim Friehe & Alexander Rasch, 2015. "The Influence of Product Liability on Vertical Product Differentiation," CESifo Working Paper Series 5315, CESifo.
    14. Andrew F. Daughety & Jennifer F. Reinganum, 2014. "Cumulative Harm and Resilient Liability Rules for Product Markets," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 371-400.
    15. Takaoka, Sumiko, 2005. "The effects of product liability costs on R&D with asymmetric information," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 59-81, January.
    16. Bala V. Balachandran & Nandu J. Nagarajan, 1986. "Imperfect information, insurance, and auditors' legal liability," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), pages 281-301, September.
    17. Florian Baumann & Tim Friehe & Alexander Rasch, 2018. "Product Liability in Markets for Vertically Differentiated Products," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 20(1), pages 46-81.
    18. Miceli Thomas J. & Segerson Kathleen, 2013. "Liability versus Regulation for Dangerous Products When Consumers Vary in Their Susceptibility to Harm and May Misperceive Risk," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 9(3), pages 341-355, December.
    19. Tomas J. Philipson & Eric Sun, 2008. "Is the Food And Drug Administration Safe And Effective?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 22(1), pages 85-102, Winter.
    20. Coleff, Joaquín, 2011. "Product reliability, consumers’ complaints and market performance: the case of consumers’ associations," UC3M Working papers. Economics we1121, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Liability; oligopoly; safety; social optimality; torts;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D4 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design
    • K0 - Law and Economics - - General
    • L1 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:van:wpaper:0308. 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: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/econ/wparchive/index.html .

    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.