New Economics Papers
on Law and Economics
Issue of 2006‒10‒14
three papers chosen by
Jeong-Joon Lee, Towson University
  1. Meta Analysis of Empirical Deterrence Studies: an explorative contest By Thomas Rupp
  2. The Uneasy Case for Fractional-Reserve Free Banking By van den Hauwe, Ludwig
  3. Judicial Independence, Elections and Minority Interests By Daniel Berkowitz; Chris Bonneau; Karen Clay
  1. By: Thomas Rupp (Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre (Department of Economics), Technische Universität Darmstadt (Darmstadt University of Technology))
    Abstract: A sample of 200 studies empirically analyzing deterrence in some way is evaluated. Various methods of data mining (stepwise regressions, Extreme Bounds Analysis, Bayesian Model Averaging, manual and naive selections) are used to explore different influence of various variables on the results of each study. The preliminary results of these methods are tested against each other in a competition of methodology to evaluate their performance in forecasting and fitting the data and to conclude which methods should be favored in an upcoming extensive meta-analysis. It seems to be that restrictive methods (which select fewer variables) are to be preferred when predicting data ex ante and less parsimonious (which select more variables) methods when data has to be fitted (ex post). In the former case forward stepwise regression or Bayesian Model Selection perform very well, whereas backward stepwise regression and Extreme Bounds Analysis are to be preferred in the latter case.
    Keywords: meta analysis, data mining, deterrence, criminometrics
    JEL: C81 K14 K42
    Date: 2006–06
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tud:ddpiec:174&r=law
  2. By: van den Hauwe, Ludwig
    Abstract: Since a few decades several sub-disciplines within economics have witnessed a reorientation towards institutional analysis. This development has in particular also affected the fields of macroeconomics and monetary theory where it has led to several proposals for far-reaching financial and monetary reform. One of the more successful of these proposals advocates a fractional-reserve free banking system, that is, a system with no central bank, but with permission for the banks to operate with a fractional reserve. This article exposes several conceptual flaws in this proposal. In particular several claims of the fractional-reserve free bankers with respect to the purported working characteristics of this system are criticized from the perspective of economic theory. In particular, the claim that a fractional-reserve free banking system would lead to the disappearance of the business cycle is recognized as false. Furthermore an invisible-hand analysis is performed, reinforcing the conclusion that fractional-reserve free banking is incompatible with the ethical and juridical principles underlying a free society.
    Keywords: monetary and banking regimes; comparative institutional analysis; central banking versus free banking controversy; fractional-reserve free banking; Law and Economics of money and banking;
    JEL: E50 E32 E42 B53 K39 G18 P34 H11
    Date: 2006–10–05
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:120&r=law
  3. By: Daniel Berkowitz; Chris Bonneau; Karen Clay
    Date: 2006–01
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pit:wpaper:217&r=law
This issue is ©2006 by Jeong-Joon Lee. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at https://nep.repec.org. For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <director@nep.repec.org>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒04‒29 at 6:24.