Startseite A Note on Productive and Dynamic Inefficiencies of Intermediate Regulatory Sanctions
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

A Note on Productive and Dynamic Inefficiencies of Intermediate Regulatory Sanctions

  • Tim Friehe und Murat C. Mungan ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 6. Dezember 2019

Abstract

This article shows that regulatory sanctions that fall into an intermediate range can generate subtle problems not apparent in simple enforcement models. Assuming that firms may ultimately face different noncompliance detection probabilities, we highlight that intermediate sanctions may conflict with aspects of both static and dynamic efficiency.

JEL Classification: K42; L51

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the very helpful suggestions received from an anonymous reviewer and the handling editor, Tobias Wenzel.

References

Andreoni, J. 1991. “Reasonable Doubt and the Optimal Magnitude of Fines: Should the Penalty Fit the Crime?” RAND Journal of Economics 22: 385–95.10.2307/2601054Suche in Google Scholar

Arguedas, C. 2013. “Pollution Standards, Technology Investment and Fines for Non-compliance.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 44: 156–76.10.1007/s11149-013-9217-8Suche in Google Scholar

Baumann, F., and T. Friehe. 2017. “Design Standards and Technology Adoption: Welfare Effects of Increasing Environmental Fines when the Number of Firms is Endogenous.” Environmental Economics and Policy 19: 427–50.10.1007/s10018-016-0166-1Suche in Google Scholar

Decker, C. S. 2007. “Flexible Enforcement and Fine Adjustment.” Regulation & Governance 1: 312–28.10.1111/j.1748-5991.2007.00019.xSuche in Google Scholar

Faure, M. 2009. “Environmental crimes.” In Criminal law and economics, edited by N. Garoupa. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Suche in Google Scholar

Friehe, T., and T. J. Miceli. 2014. “Marginal Deterrence when Offenders Act Sequentially.” Economics Letters 124: 523–25.10.1016/j.econlet.2014.07.023Suche in Google Scholar

Garoupa, N. 1997. “The Theory of Optimal Law Enforcement.” Journal of Economic Surveys 11: 267–95.10.1111/1467-6419.00034Suche in Google Scholar

Kambhu, J. 1989. “Regulatory Standards, Noncompliance and Enforcement.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 1: 103–14.10.1007/BF00140020Suche in Google Scholar

Leshem, S., and A. Tabbach. 2012. “Commitment Versus Flexibility in Enforcement Games.” B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics 12 (1): 1935–704.10.1515/1935-1704.1833Suche in Google Scholar

Malik, A. S. 1990. “Avoidance, Screening and Optimum Enforcement.” RAND Journal of Economics 21: 341–53.10.2307/2555613Suche in Google Scholar

Mullin, W. P., and C. M. Snyder. 2009. “Corporate Crime.” In Criminal Law and Economics, edited by N. Garoupa. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Suche in Google Scholar

Mungan, M. 2016. “Stigma Dilution and Over-Criminalization.” American Law and Economics Review 18: 88–121.10.1093/aler/ahv026Suche in Google Scholar

Polinsky, A. M., and S. Shavell. 1979. “The Optimal Tradeoff Between the Probability and the Magnitude of Fines.” American Economic Review 69: 880–91.Suche in Google Scholar

Polinsky, A. M., and S. Shavell. 2007. “The Theory of Public Enforcement of Law.” In Handbook of Law and Economics 1, edited by A. M. Polinsky, S. Shavell. North Holland.10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_2745-1Suche in Google Scholar

Prager, R. A. 1989. “Franchise Bidding for Natural Monopoly: The Case of Cable Television in Massachusetts.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 1: 115–31.10.1007/BF00140021Suche in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2019-12-06

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Heruntergeladen am 30.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/bejeap-2019-0122/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen