Protecting Endangered Species: Do the Main Legislative Tools Work?

It is critical to assess the effectiveness of the tools used to protect endangered species. The main tools enabled under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) to promote species recovery are funding, recovery plan development and critical habitat designation. Earlier studies sometimes found that statistically significant effects of these tools could be detected, but they have not answered the question of whether the effects were large enough to be biologically meaningful. Here, we ask: how much does the recovery status of ESA-listed species improve with the application of these tools? We used species' staus reports to Congress from 1988 to 2006 to quantify two measures of recovery for 1179 species. We related these to the amount of federal funding, years with a recovery plan, years with critical habitat designation, the amount of peer-reviewed scientific information, and time listed. We found that change in recovery status of listed species was, at best, only very weakly related to any of these tools. Recovery was positively related to the number of years listed, years with a recovery plan, and funding, however, these tools combined explain <13% of the variation in recovery status among species. Earlier studies that reported significant effects of these tools did not focus on effect sizes; however, they are in fact similarly small. One must conclude either that these tools are not very effective in promoting species' recovery, or (as we suspect) that species recovery data are so poor that it is impossible to tell whether the tools are effective or not. It is critically important to assess the effectiveness of tools used to promote species recovery; it is therefore also critically important to obtain population status data that are adequate to that task

The heteronomy of choice architecture

Choice architecture is heralded as a policy approach that does not coercively reduce freedom of choice. Still we might worry that this approach fails to respect individual choice because it subversively manipulates individuals, thus contravening their personal autonomy. In this article I address two arguments to this effect. First, I deny that choice architecture is necessarily heteronomous. I explain the reasons we have for avoiding heteronomous policy-making and offer a set of four conditions for non-heteronomy. I then provide examples of nudges that meet these conditions. I argue that these policies are capable of respecting and promoting personal autonomy, and show this claim to be true across contrasting conceptions of autonomy. Second, I deny that choice architecture is disrespectful because it is epistemically paternalistic. This critique appears to loom large even against non-heteronomous nudges. However, I argue that while some of these policies may exhibit epistemically paternalistic tendencies, these tendencies do not necessarily undermine personal autonomy. Thus, if we are to find such policies objectionable, we cannot do so on the grounds of respect for autonomy

Judging the Judiciary by the Numbers: Empirical Research on Judges

Do judges make decisions that are truly impartial? A wide range of experimental and field studies reveal that several extra-legal factors influence judicial decision making. Demographic characteristics of judges and litigants affect judges’ decisions. Judges also rely heavily on intuitive reasoning in deciding cases, making them vulnerable to the use of mental shortcuts that can lead to mistakes. Furthermore, judges sometimes rely on facts outside the record and rule more favorably towards litigants who are more sympathetic or with whom they share demographic characteristics. On the whole, judges are excellent decision makers, and sometimes resist common errors of judgment that influence ordinary adults. The weight of the evidence, however, suggests that judges are vulnerable to systematic deviations from the ideal of judicial impartiality

Complex mortgage loans as a case study for consumer law and economics

W artykule przeanalizowano wyzwanie dla orzecznictwa, jakie stanowią walutowe kredyty hipoteczne, ryzykowne rodzaje kredytów hipotecznych, które były oferowane w Europie Środkowo-Wschodniej w ciągu ostatnich 15 lat. Istnieją dowody wskazujące, że walutowe kredyty hipoteczne stanowią „ciemny rozdział” w historii europejskiego finansowania hipotecznego. Staramy się pokazać, że analiza behawioralna może posłużyć jako pomocne narzędzie w wyjaśnieniu niektórych powodów, dla których kredytobiorcy konsumenci zdecydowali się na tego typu ryzykowne produkty hipoteczne.This contribution analyses the challenge to courts posed by foreign currency mortgage loans, risky type of mortgages that were broadly marketed in the Central and Eastern Europe in the last 15 years. There is considerable evidence that foreign currency mortgage loans constitute a “dark chapter” in the history of European mortgage financing. We attempt to show that behavioural analysis can be used as a helpful tool in explaining at least some of the reasons why consumer borrowers opted to choose this type of risky mortgage products

Taking the prohibition of unfair commercial practices seriously

Under the European Union Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, a commercial practice is misleading if it “‘is likely to deceive the average consumer or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise”’. Advertising statements constitute a major examples of commercial practices. In this contribution we analyze the issue as to how the misleading character of advertising statements should be assessed. We use the example of risky mortgage loan contracts to demonstrate how courts and consumers assess pre-contract statements