New Economics Papers
on Law and Economics
Issue of 2010‒01‒16
six papers chosen by
Jeong-Joon Lee, Towson University


  1. Electronic Titling: Potential and Risks By Benito Arruñada
  2. The Degree of Judicial Enforcement and Credit Markets: Evidence from Japanese Household Panel Data By @Charles Yuji Horioka; Shizuko Sekita
  3. On the Complementarity between Law and Social Norm: A Model Analysis with Special Reference to the Liability Rule for Tort By Atsushi Tsuneki; Yoshinobu Zasu
  4. Ocean iron fertilization: Why further research is needed By Kerstin Güssow; Alexander Proelss; Andreas Oschlies; Katrin Rehdanz; Wilfried Rickels
  5. Regulating non audit services: Towards a principles based approach to regulation By Ojo, Marianne
  6. Endogenous Institutional Change and Economic Development: A Micro-Level Analysis of Transmission Channels By Michael Grimm; Stephan Klasen

  1. By: Benito Arruñada
    Abstract: Initiatives in electronic conveyancing and registration show the potential of new technologies to transform such systems, reducing costs and enhancing legal security. However, they also incur substantial risks of transferring costs and risks among registries, conveyancers and rightholders, instead of reducing them; entrenching the private interests of conveyancers, instead of increasing competition and disintermediating them; modifying the allocation of tasks in a way that leads in the long term to the debasement of registries of rights with indefeasible title into mere recordings of deeds; and empowering conveyancers instead of transactors and rightholders, which increases costs and reduces security. Fulfilling the promise of new technologies in both costs and security requires strengthening registries’ incentives and empowering rightholders in their interaction with registries.
    Keywords: Electronic Conveyancing, Electronic Registration, Lawyers, Notaries, Digital Signatures
    JEL: K11 K12 O33 L43
    Date: 2009–12
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:upf:upfgen:1193&r=law
  2. By: @Charles Yuji Horioka; Shizuko Sekita
    Abstract: In this paper, we conduct an empirical analysis of the impact of better judicial enforcement on the probability of being credit rationed, loan size, and the probability of bankruptcy using household-level data from the Japanese Panel Survey of Consumers, conducted by the Institute for Research on Household Economics, in conjunction with judicial data by court district on trial length and the ratio of the number of pending civil trials to the number of incoming civil trials. Contrary to the predictions of the existing theory, we find that better judicial enforcement increases the probability of being credit rationed and decreases loan size. Furthermore, we find that better judicial enforcement increases the probability of bankruptcy, a result that is consistent with lax screening effects.
    Date: 2009–12
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:dpr:wpaper:0764&r=law
  3. By: Atsushi Tsuneki; Yoshinobu Zasu
    Abstract: How the law and the social norm interact with each other in the legalized modern society, whether the law completely replaces the pre-existing social norm or they coexist, and whether their interaction achieves an efficient system of social rules or there is innate inefficiency, have remained obscure until today. This article provides an analytical model to clarify the interrelationship between the law and the social norm. We show that, where both the law and social norm maximize social welfare, their non-cooperative interaction attains Pareto efficiency and that they are perfect substitutes to each other. We then consider the case where social norm is determined on the basis of some misperceptions and show the possibility that an inefficient social system may persist. Furthermore, we illustrate the possibility that law and social norm are complements to each other and that the existence of the government could be second-best.
    Date: 2010–01
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:dpr:wpaper:0765&r=law
  4. By: Kerstin Güssow; Alexander Proelss; Andreas Oschlies; Katrin Rehdanz; Wilfried Rickels
    Abstract: Despite large uncertainties in the fertilization efficiency, natural iron fertilization studies and some of the purposeful iron enrichment studies have demonstrated that Southern Ocean iron fertilization can lead to a significant export of carbon from the sea surface to the ocean interior. From an economic perspective the potential of OIF is far from negligible in relation to other abatement options. Comparing the range of cost estimates to the range of estimates for forestation projects they are in the same order of magnitude, but OIF could provide more carbon credits even if high discount rates are used to account for potential leakage and non-permanence. However, the uncertainty about undesired adverse effects of purposeful iron fertilization on marine ecosystems and biogeochemistry has led to attempts to ban commercial and, to some extent, scientific experiments aimed at a better understanding of the processes involved, effectively precluding further consideration of this mitigation option. As regards the perspective of public international law, the pertinent agreements dealing with the protection of the marine environment indicate that OIF is to be considered as lawful if and to the extent to which it represents legitimate scientific research. In this respect, the precautionary principle can be used to balance the risks arising out of scientific OIF activities for the marine environment with the potential advantages relevant to the objectives of the climate change regime. As scientific OIF experiments involve only comparatively small negative impacts within a limited marine area, further scientific research must be permitted to explore the carbon sequestration potential of OIF in order to either reject this concept or integrate it into the flexible mechanisms contained in the Kyoto Protocol
    Keywords: climate change, geoengineering, ocean iron fertilization, international carbon market, public, international law, precautionary principle
    JEL: K33 Q51 Q54 Q56
    Date: 2009–12
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:kie:kieliw:1574&r=law
  5. By: Ojo, Marianne
    Abstract: Based on the argument that the benefits conferred through the provision of non audit services by audit firms outweigh the attributed costs of safeguarding the auditor's independence, this paper will not only seek to justify this argument, advance proposals which do not favour an outright prohibition of the provision of non audit services, but also consider means through which non audit services could be regulated in order to facilitate competition in the audit market. At the same time it will consider various legislation which have been introduced in recent years and which are aimed at facilitating greater disclosure of information – hence improving transparency within the audit and financial markets. “Specific measures,” it is contended, “would involve not only the introduction of new standards (for example – the disclosure of client concentration) but also the elimination of current restrictions“. Different types of safeguards which exist in order “to mitigate or eliminate threats” to the auditor’s independence, as a result of the provision of non audit services, will be considered against the regulator’s aim to facilitate competition, enhance disclosure and promote other practices which would advance the regulator’s endeavour to be more “market friendly”. The consultation on control structures in audit firms and their consequences on the audit market, a consultation which was launched by the European Commission as part of its efforts to create more market players, could be regarded as a response to such proposals to facilitate a more “market friendly” environment and also to concerns that the financial market is already over regulated. Some of the possible ways advanced by the Commission as channels for facilitating greater entry into the international market include the deregulation of the capitalisation of audit firms as a catalyst for facilitating greater entry into the audit market. Deregulation of the capital structure in this sense is considered to be a “modification of Article 3 (4) of the 2006 Directive on Statutory Audit which should however not be to the detriment of robust independence rules.”
    Keywords: Principles based regulation; audit; directives; regulation; market; NAS (non audit services)
    JEL: K2 G18 G3 M42
    Date: 2009–12–17
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:19408&r=law
  6. By: Michael Grimm (International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam); Stephan Klasen
    Abstract: There is a well-known debate about the role of institutions in explaining the long-term development of countries. We believe there is value-added to consider the institutions hypothesis at the micro level within a country to analyze the exact transmission channels linking endogenous institutional change to development outcomes. Given the central importance of agricultural productivity improvements for initiating the process of economic development, we focus on the transmission mechanisms that lead to the emergence of institutions relevant for agricultural development, thereby incorporating insights from the literatures on demographic influences of institutional change, induced innovations, as well as the central role of land rights in our analysis. Our main argument is that in conditions of relative land abundance, geographic factors influence rural-rural migration flows to geographically well-endowed regions which in turn give rise to migration-induced land scarcity. Land scarcity in turn, provides incentives to formalize landownership. Eventually, formalized land rights increase investment in land and enhance the adoption of new and better technologies promoting agricultural growth and economic development. We provide empirical evidence for this hypothesis using longitudinal village and household survey data from Indonesia.
    Keywords: Geography; migration; land titles; institutions; agricultural development; Indonesia
    JEL: K11 O12 Q12
    Date: 2009–09–22
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:got:gotcrc:014&r=law

This issue is ©2010 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.