IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/vuw/vuwcsr/19003.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Optimal Judicial Sentencing and the Fair Trading Act 1986 - A study of the size of penalties awarded under section 40 of the New Zealand Fair Trading Act 1986

Author

Listed:
  • Legge, Jaimie

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the determinants of the size of penalties awarded by the courts under the Fair Trading Act 1986. The law and economics theory of optimal penalties provides the theoretical framework. This is used to develop a theory of optimal judicial sentencing based on the assumption that similar "optimality considerations" operate at both legislative and judicial levels.The factors judges take into account in sentencing in Fair Trading Act cases as disclosed in their written decisions are quantified and used to approximate the optimality considerations. In this manner features specific to the Fair Trading Act environment are accommodated. Using a sample of Fair Trading Act cases econometric analysis is employed to test whether the theory developed in this study is in fact capable of explaining differences in the sizes of the penalties imposed by the courts. While it is beyond the scope of this study to decidewhether the individual penalties that have been imposed are optimal an assessment is made about the extent to which optimality considerations explain the average variation in the size of penalties.The study found that optimality considerations do explain some but not all of the variation in the size of penalties. In particular four variables -whether the defendant intended to breach the Act whether the defendant had previously breached the Fair Trading Act whether the defendant is able to pay a large fine and whether the defendant cooperated with the Commerce Commission in its inquiry - were shown to have a statistically significant impact on the size of the penalty.The study suggests that there is reasonable degree of consistency of judicial sentencing under the Fair Trading Act.

Suggested Citation

  • Legge, Jaimie, 2001. "Optimal Judicial Sentencing and the Fair Trading Act 1986 - A study of the size of penalties awarded under section 40 of the New Zealand Fair Trading Act 1986," Working Paper Series 19003, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    • Handle: RePEc:vuw:vuwcsr:19003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ir.wgtn.ac.nz/handle/123456789/19003
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Lewis Evans & Arthur Grimes & Bryce Wilkinson, 1996. "Economic Reform in New Zealand 1984-95: The Pursuit of Efficiency," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(4), pages 1856-1902, December.
    3. Nuno Garoupa, 1997. "The Theory of Optimal Law Enforcement," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(3), pages 267-295, September.
    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. repec:vuw:vuwscr:19003 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Jan Boone & Peter Fredriksson & Bertil Holmlund & Jan C. van Ours, 2007. "Optimal Unemployment Insurance with Monitoring and Sanctions," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(518), pages 399-421, March.
    3. Liu, Xiaodong & Patacchini, Eleonora & Zenou, Yves & Lee, Lung-Fei, 2011. "Criminal Networks: Who is the Key Player?," Research Papers in Economics 2011:7, Stockholm University, Department of Economics.
    4. Yahagi, Ken, 2021. "Law enforcement with motivated agents," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    5. Poret, Sylvaine, 2009. "An optimal anti-drug law enforcement policy," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 221-228, September.
    6. Pradiptyo, Rimawan, 2012. "Does Corruption Pay in Indonesia? If So, Who are Benefited the Most?," MPRA Paper 41384, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Lisa R. Anderson & Gregory DeAngelo & Winand Emons & Beth Freeborn & Hannes Lang, 2017. "Penalty Structures And Deterrence In A Two-Stage Model: Experimental Evidence," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(4), pages 1833-1867, October.
    8. Obidzinski, Marie & Oytana, Yves, 2019. "Identity errors and the standard of proof," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 73-80.
    9. Neil Rickman & Robert Witt, 2007. "The Determinants of Employee Crime in the UK," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(293), pages 161-175, February.
    10. Emeline Bezin & Thierry Verdier & Yves Zenou, 2022. "Crime, Broken Families, and Punishment," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 723-760, November.
    11. Hugh Gravelle & Nuno Garoupa, 2002. "Optimal Deterrence with Legal Defense Expenditure," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 40(3), pages 366-379, July.
    12. Nøstbakken, Linda, 2008. "Fisheries law enforcement--A survey of the economic literature," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 293-300, May.
    13. Eric Langlais, 2009. "On the Ambiguous Effects of Repression," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 93-94, pages 327-348.
    14. Eric Langlais & Marie Obidzinski, 2013. "Elected vs appointed public law enforcers," Working Papers hal-04141175, HAL.
    15. Éric Langlais & Marie Obidzinski, 2015. "Public law enforcers and political competition," EconomiX Working Papers 2015-40, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    16. Peter Fredriksson & Bertil Holmlund, 2006. "Improving Incentives in Unemployment Insurance: A Review of Recent Research," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 357-386, July.
    17. Germani, Anna Rita & Morone, Andrea & Morone, Piergiuseppe, 2009. "Investigating Discretionary Environmental Enforcement: a pilot experiment," MPRA Paper 12735, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Emons, Winand, 2007. "Escalating penalties for repeat offenders," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 170-178.
    19. Zhiyong (John) Liu & Zhewei Wang & Zhendong Yin, 2022. "When is duplication of effort a good thing in law enforcement?," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 24(4), pages 682-708, August.
    20. Echazu, Luciana & Garoupa, Nuno, 2012. "Why not adopt a loser-pays-all rule in criminal litigation?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 233-241.
    21. Funk, Patricia, 2004. "On the effective use of stigma as a crime-deterrent," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 715-728, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:vuw:vuwcsr:19003. 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: Library Technology Services (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fcvuwnz.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.