Regulation of Internet Access

Abstract We analyze the welfare implication of regulating the price of last-mile access to consumers provided by local Internet service providers (ISPs). We consider a new two-sided market model that highlights the vertical relationship between two platforms, a local ISP and a large content provider called a Content Network Platform (CNP) that plays the role of platform in the content markets. The welfare implication of regulating the Internet access depends on which of the two platforms holds a dominant factor in creating consumer demand for the Internet. If the ISP's Internet subscription price is the dominant factor, regulation alleviates inefficiencies due to the ISP's market power and, thus, is likely to improve welfare

Regulation of Internet Access

Abstract We analyze the welfare implication of regulating the price of last-mile access to consumers provided by local Internet service providers (ISPs). We consider a new two-sided market model that highlights the vertical relationship between two platforms, a local ISP and a large content provider called a Content Network Platform (CNP) that plays the role of platform in the content markets. The welfare implication of regulating the Internet access depends on which of the two platforms holds a dominant factor in creating consumer demand for the Internet. If the ISP's Internet subscription price is the dominant factor, regulation alleviates inefficiencies due to the ISP's market power and, thus, is likely to improve welfare

Torture in Counterterrorism: Agency Incentives and Slippery Slopes

Abstract We develop a model of counterterrorism to analyze the effects of allowing a government agency to torture terrorist suspects. We find that legalizing torture in high evidence cases has offsetting effects on agency incentives to counter terrorism by means other than torture. It increases these incentives because other efforts may increase the probability of having high enough evidence to warrant the use of torture if other efforts fail. However, it also lowers these incentives because the agency might come to rely on torture to avert attacks. If the latter effect dominates, legalizing torture in high evidence cases can reduce security and increase the probability of terrorist attack. Moreover, it can increase agency incentives to torture even in low evidence cases, leading to a "slippery slope." (JEL K4, D8, H1

The Effects of the Fourth Amendment: An Economic Analysis

We develop an economic model of crime and search that allows us to analyze the effects of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule on crime and privacy. We find that the rule always increases crime but has two opposing effects on searches. It directly reduces searches by reducing the chances that they lead to successful conviction, but it also indirectly increases them by increasing crime. If its indirect effect dominates, the rule actually increases searches and has an ambiguous effect on wrongful searches. If its direct effect dominates, it reduces wrongful searches, thereby protecting privacy. Its direct effect is more likely to dominate the greater is the number of police officers per capita, the lower is the police's incentive to simply close cases and the more accountable the police are for their mistakes. Police accountability also increases crime but unambiguously reduces wrongful searches. We also explore the effects of long-term progress in search technology on crime and privacy. The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Yale University. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected], Oxford University Press.

Private v. public antitrust enforcement: A strategic analysis

We compare private and public enforcement of the antitrust laws in a simple strategic model of antitrust violation and lawsuit. The model highlights the tradeoff that private firms are initially more likely than the government to be informed about antitrust violations, but are also more likely to use the antitrust laws strategically, to the disadvantage of consumers. Assuming coupled private damages, if the court is sufficiently accurate, adding private enforcement to public enforcement always increases social welfare, while if the court is less accurate, it increases welfare only if the government is sufficiently inefficient in litigation. Pure private enforcement is never strictly optimal. Public enforcement can achieve the social optimum with a fee for public lawsuit that induces efficient information revelation. Private enforcement can also achieve the social optimum with private damages that are efficiently multiplied and decoupled

Incentives for Discrimination *

Abstract This paper models employers' incentives for discrimination against ex ante identical groups of workers when the workers must compete for a limited number of positions. Employers benefit from discrimination against minority workers because it can reduce the overall risk from workers' noisy signals by increasing the expected quality of "majority" workers and their chance to win the competition for the limited number of positions. We show that employers can influence the selection of a discriminatory equilibrium by choosing the set of finalists in competition primarily from a majority group, and favoring them when the two groups are equally qualified. We discuss the implications of equal opportunity laws in this context