An Analysis of Fee-Shifting Based on the Margin of Victory: On FrivolousSuits, Meritorious Suits and the Role of Rule 11

We show that, when plaintiffs cannot predict the outcome of litigation with certainty, neither the American rule of litigation cost allocation (under which each litigant bears its own expenses) nor the British rule (under which the losing litigant pays the attorneys' fees of the winning litigant) would induce plaintiffs to make optimal decisions to bring suit. In particular, plaintiffs may bring frivolous suits when litigation costs are sufficiently small relative to the amount at stake, and plaintiffs may not bring some meritorious suits when litigation costs are sufficiently large relative to the amount at stake. We analyze the effect of more general fee-shifting rules that are based not only upon the identity of the winning party but also on how strong the court perceives the case to be at the end of the trial -- that is, the 'margin of victory.' In particular, we explore how and when one can design such a rule to induce plaintiffs to sue if and only if they believe their cases are sufficiently strong. Our analysis suggests some considerations to guide the interpretation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

Bayesian inference in high-dimensional linear models using an empirical correlation-adaptive prior

In the context of a high-dimensional linear regression model, we propose the use of an empirical correlation-adaptive prior that makes use of information in the observed predictor variable matrix to adaptively address high collinearity, determining if parameters associated with correlated predictors should be shrunk together or kept apart. Under suitable conditions, we prove that this empirical Bayes posterior concentrates around the true sparse parameter at the optimal rate asymptotically. A simplified version of a shotgun stochastic search algorithm is employed to implement the variable selection procedure, and we show, via simulation experiments across different settings and a real-data application, the favorable performance of the proposed method compared to existing methods.Comment: 25 pages, 4 figures, 2 table

Endogenous Decentralization in Federal Environmental Policies

Under most federal environmental laws and some health and safety laws, states may apply for "primacy," that is, authority to implement and enforce federal law, through a process known as "authorization." Some observers fear that states use authorization to adopt more lax policies in a regulatory "race to the bottom." This paper presents a simple model of the interaction between the federal and state governments in such a scheme of partial decentralization. Our model suggests that the authorization option may not only increase social welfare but also allow more stringent environmental regulations than would otherwise be feasible. Our model also suggests that the federal government may choose its policies so that states that desire more strict regulation authorize, while other states remain under the federal program. We then test this hypothesis using data on federal regulation of water pollution and of hazardous waste, which are two of the most important environmental programs to allow authorization. We find that states that prefer more environmental protection authorize more quickly under both policies. This evidence suggests that states seek authorization to adopt more strict policies instead of more lax policies compared to federal policies.

Dynamic communicability and epidemic spread: a case study on an empirical dynamic contact network

We analyze a recently proposed temporal centrality measure applied to an empirical network based on person-to-person contacts in an emergency department of a busy urban hospital. We show that temporal centrality identifies a distinct set of top-spreaders than centrality based on the time-aggregated binarized contact matrix, so that taken together, the accuracy of capturing top-spreaders improves significantly. However, with respect to predicting epidemic outcome, the temporal measure does not necessarily outperform less complex measures. Our results also show that other temporal markers such as duration observed and the time of first appearance in the the network can be used in a simple predictive model to generate predictions that capture the trend of the observed data remarkably well.Comment: 31 pages, 15 figures, 11 tables; typos corrected; references added; Figure 3 added; some changes to the conclusion and introductio

Walls or Welcome Mats? Immigration and the Labor Market

While the public debate on immigration reform has been divisive, the tools of economics provide clear lessons for a way forward. The single most important lesson that economics holds for immigration policymakers is that immigration restrictions are costly, because they interfere with the free movement of labor. Most economists believe that the gains to global GDP from greater labor mobility are very large. Beyond the estimated gains to the world economy, the consensus among economists is that, as a whole, U.S. natives gain from immigration in the labor market. While immigration may have an adverse effect on some native wages and employment—particularly for the least skilled workers—the empirical evidence indicates these effects, if existent, are small.https://repository.upenn.edu/pennwhartonppi/1037/thumbnail.jp

Immigration Restriction as Redistributive Taxation: Working Women and the Costs of Protectionism in the Labor Market

In this paper, I argue that tax and transfer policies are more efficient than immigration restrictions as instruments for raising the after-tax incomes of the least skilled native workers. Policies to protect these native workers from immigrant competition in the labor market do no better at promoting distributive justice and are likely to impose a greater economic burden on natives in the country of immigration than the tax alternative. These immigration restrictions are especially costly given the disproportionate burden that they place on households with working women, which discourages female participation in the labor force. This burden runs contrary to the teachings of optimal tax theory and introduces excessive distortions in the labor market because the supply of female labor is more elastic than the supply of male labor. Thus, the best response to concerns about the effect of immigration on the distribution of income among natives is to increase the progressivity of the tax system

Cultural Communities in a Global Labor Market: Immigration Restrictions as Residential Segregation

Economists recognize that nations can gain from trade through not only the free movement of goods across national boundaries but also the free movement of services, capital, and labor across national boundaries. Despite the presumption that economic theory raises in favor of international labor mobility, the nations of the world maintain restrictions on immigration and show little inclination to liberalize these barriers significantly. Michael Walzer defends immigration restrictions as policies necessary to maintain distinct cultural communities and rejects the alternative of voluntary residential segregation at the local level. I argue that we should instead prefer voluntary segregation at the local level over segregation mandated by the government at the national level. Segregation at the local level allows individuals to enjoy the benefits of living in a community matching their preferences while still enjoying access to labor markets in other communities nearby. The type of segregation that Walzer defends, enforced at the national level through immigration restrictions, cuts workers off from valuable employment opportunities. First, I present a critique of Walzer’s claims from an economic perspective. I take the maximization of global economic welfare to be the appropriate objective, then explore whether the value of distinctive cultural communities can justify immigration restrictions. Second, I present a moral critique from a liberal perspective. I argue that even if immigration restrictions satisfy the preferences of incumbent residents for more extensive segregation than voluntary segregation can provide, this effect cannot justify immigration restrictions in a society committed to liberal ideals