What We Don\u27t Know About Class Actions but Hope to Know Soon

Legislation that would alter class action practice in the federal courts has been pending in Congress. Nearly a decade’s worth of U.S. Supreme Court cases have restricted the scope and ease of use of the class action device. Class action critics argue that class litigation is a “racket” that fails to compensate plaintiffs and instead enriches plaintiffs’ lawyers at the expense of legitimate business practices. On the other hand, defenders of class actions decry the legislative and judicial forces aligned against them, warning that trends in class action law will eviscerate the practical rights held by consumers and workers. In short, there is considerable controversy over whether class actions are an economic menace or a boon to the little guys. We have two purposes in this brief Article. First, we wish to focus continuing attention on the need for more empirical information about the actual functioning of the federal class action system. Second, we wish to share our current efforts to use a one-of-a-kind collection of docket reports, originally harvested from Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER), to fill the empirical gap. Presentation of empirical findings resulting from this effort awaits a future article. However, this Article includes suggestions as to how the federal judiciary and Administrative Office of the United States Courts (“AO”) could improve data management and data reporting so as to make information about federal class actions more accessible to scholars and others interested in how the class action device operates in practice and what reforms, if any, would be advisable

More for the poor is less for the poor : the politics of targeting

Standard economic analyses suggests that when the budget for redistribution is fixed, transfers should be targeted to (that is, means-tested for) those most in need. But both economists and political scientists have long recognized the possibility that targeting could undermine political support for redistribution, and hence reduce the available budget. The authors formalize this recognition, developing a simple economy in which both nontargeted (universally received) and targeted transfers are available. The policymaker chooses the share of the budget to be spent on each type of transfer while the budget is determined through majority voting. Their results are striking. If the policymaker ignores political feasibility and assumes that the budget is fixed, she will choose full targeting of transfers -in the process minimizing social welfare and the utility of the poor. By contrast, when the policymaker recognizes budgetary endogeneity, she will choose zero targeting, spending theentire budget on the universally received transfer. Social welfare, the budget for redistribution, and the utility of poor agents are all maximized in the resulting equilibrium.Environmental Economics&Policies,Services&Transfers to Poor,Health Economics&Finance,Economic Theory&Research,Poverty Impact Evaluation,Services&Transfers to Poor,Rural Poverty Reduction,Economic Theory&Research,Environmental Economics&Policies,Safety Nets and Transfers

What Mean Impacts Miss: Distributional Effects of Welfare Reform Experiments

Labor supply theory predicts systematic heterogeneity in the impact of recent welfare reforms on earnings, transfers, and income. Yet most welfare reform research focuses on mean impacts. We investigate the importance of heterogeneity using random-assignment data from Connecticut's Jobs First waiver features key elements of post-1996 welfare programs. Estimated quantile treatment effects exhibit the substantial heterogeneity predicted by labor supply theory. Thus mean impacts miss a great deal. Looking separately at dropouts and other women does not improve the performance of mean impacts. Evaluating Jobs First relative to AFDC using a class of social welfare functions, we find that Jobs First's performance depends on the degree of inequality aversion, the relative valuation of earnings and transfers, and whether one accounts for Jobs First's greater costs. We conclude that welfare reform's effects are likely both more varied and more extensive than has been recognized.

Welfare Reform and Health

We investigate the relationship between welfare reform and health insurance, health care utilization, and self-reported measures of health status for women aged 20-45, using nationally representative data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. We present estimates from both difference-in-difference models (applied to single women and single women with children) and difference-in-difference-in-difference models (using married women and single women without children as comparison groups). We find that welfare reform is associated with reductions in health insurance coverage and specific measures of health care utilization, as well as an increase in the likelihood of needing care but finding it unaffordable. We find no statistically significant effects of reform on health status. Overall, effects are somewhat larger for Hispanics compared to blacks and low educated women.

Does more for the poor mean less for the poor? The politics of tagging

Proposals aimed at improving the welfare of the poor often include indicator targeting, in which non-income characteristics (such as race, gender, or land ownership) that are correlated with income are used to target limited funds to groups likely to include a cincentration of the poor. Previous work shows that efficient use of a fixed budget for poverty reduction requires such targeting, either because agents'income cannot be observed or to reduce distortionary incentives arising from redistributive interventions. Inspite of this, the authors question the political viability of targeting. After constructing a model that is basically an extension of Akerlof's 1978 model of"tagging", they derive three main results: 1) Akerlof's result continues to hold: that, ignoring political considerations, not only will targeting be desirable but recipients of the targeted transfer will receive a greater total transfer than they would if targeting were not possible. 2) A classical social-choice analysis-in which agents vote simultaneously about the level of taxation and the degree of targeting-shows that positive levels of targeted transfers will not exist in equilibrium (an unsurprising finding, given Plott's 1968 theorem). It also shows that a voting equilibrium often will exist with no targeting but with non-zero taxation and redistribution. 3) In a game in which the policymaker chooses the degree of targeting while voters choose the level of taxation, the redistributive efficiency gains from tagging may well fail to outweigh the resulting reduction in funds available for redistribution. These results may be extended readily to account for altruistic agents. The authors stress that even when these results hold, the alternative to targeted transfers - a universally received lump-sum grant financed through a proportional tax - will nonetheless be supported politically and will be quite progressive relative to the pretransfer income distribution.Economic Theory&Research,Services&Transfers to Poor,Poverty Impact Evaluation,Environmental Economics&Policies,Poverty Monitoring&Analysis,Services&Transfers to Poor,Rural Poverty Reduction,Environmental Economics&Policies,Poverty Impact Evaluation,Safety Nets and Transfers

The Reduced Form of Litigation Models and the Plaintiff\u27s Win Rate

In this paper I introduce what I call the reduced form approach to studying the plaintiff\u27s win rate in litigation selection models. A reduced form comprises a joint distribution of plaintiff\u27s and defendant\u27s beliefs concerning the probability that the plaintiff would win in the event a dispute were litigated; a conditional win rate function that tells us the actual probability of a plaintiff win in the event of litigation, given the parties\u27 subjective beliefs; and a litigation rule that provides the probability that a case will be litigated given the two parties\u27 beliefs. I show how models with very different-looking structure can be understood in common reduced form terms, and I then use the reduced form to prove several general results. First, a generalized version of the Priest-Klein model can be used to represent any other model\u27s reduced form, even though the Priest-Klein model uses the Landes-Posner-Gould ( LPG ) litigation rule while some other models do not. Second, Shavell\u27s famous any-win-rate result holds generally, even in models with party belief distributions that are both highly accurate and identical across plaintiffs and defendants. Third, there are only limited conditions under which the LPG litigation rule can be rejected empirically; this result undermines the case against the LPG rules\u27 admittedly non-optimizing approach to modeling litigation selection. Finally, I use the reduced form approach to clarify how selection effects complicate the use of data on the plaintiff\u27s win rate to measure changes in legal rules. The result, I suggest, is that recent work by Klerman & Lee advocating the use of such data is unduly optimistic

Can We Learn Anything About Pleading Changes from Existing Data?

In light of the gateway role that the pleading standard can play in our civil litigation system, measuring the empirical effects of pleading policy changes embodied in the Supreme Court\u27s controversial Twombly and Iqbal cases is important. In my earlier paper, Locking the Doors to Discovery, I argued that in doing so, special care is required in formulating the object of empirical study. Taking party behavior seriously, as Locking the Doors does, leads to empirical results suggesting that Twombly and Iqbal have had substantial effects among cases that face Rule 12(b)(6) motions post-Iqbal. This paper responds to potentially important critiques of my empirical implementation made by the FJC\u27s Joe Cecil and Professor David Engstrom. An additional contribution of the present paper is to elucidate some important challenges for empirical work in civil procedure. First, researchers should carefully consider which covariates belong in statistical models, while also taking care in assessing the empirical importance of controlling for covariates. Second, data collection protocols should be designed with behavioral assumptions in mind. But third, researchers should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good: even data protocols that are less than perfectly designed may be broadly useful

Bootstrap-Based Improvements for Inference with Clustered Errors

Microeconometrics researchers have increasingly realized the essential need to account for any within-group dependence in estimating standard errors of regression parameter estimates. The typical preferred solution is to calculate cluster-robust or sandwich standard errors that permit quite general heteroskedasticity and within-cluster error correlation, but presume that the number of clusters is large. In applications with few (5-30) clusters, standard asymptotic tests can over-reject considerably. We investigate more accurate inference using cluster bootstrap-t procedures that provide asymptotic refinement. These procedures are evaluated using Monte Carlos, including the much-cited differences-in-differences example of Bertrand, Mullainathan and Duflo (2004). In situations where standard methods lead to rejection rates in excess of ten percent (or more) for tests of nominal size 0.05, our methods can reduce this to five percent. In principle a pairs cluster bootstrap should work well, but in practice a Wild cluster bootstrap performs better.clustered errors; random effects; cluster robust; sandwich; bootstrap; bootstrap-t; clustered bootstrap; pairs bootstrap; wild bootstrap.