Constraints in the Economic Analysis of Law in China

Xiaoping Wu HKU; John Zhuang Liu HKU

doi:10.1515/ajle-2025-2004

Article Open Access

Constraints in the Economic Analysis of Law in China

Xiaoping Wu HKU and John Zhuang Liu HKU

Published/Copyright: May 23, 2025

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information

From the journal Asian Journal of Law and Economics Volume 16 Issue 3

Abstract

Since its introduction to China in the 1980s, the field of law and economics has undergone significant development, with a growing emphasis on empirical research. However, the integration of economic analysis into the current legal study framework has been constrained by insufficient supply and limited demand for this knowledge. This study provides a detailed analysis of the challenges hindering the advancement of law and economics in China. It categorizes research in this field into three main areas: case analysis of legal issues, quantitative analysis of the law, and empirical studies on the economic impact of law and regulations. The study examines the progress made in each category of research and identifies the key obstacles that need to be addressed.

Keywords: economic analysis of law; case analysis; quantitative analysis; legal scholarship; empirical legal studies

1 Introduction

The introduction of law and economics to China began in the 1980s through the translation of seminal works and the introduction of the theoretical framework of the economics analysis of law. The first translated volume on “law and economics” was published in mainland China in 1986 by Zhang Yuqing (Olivier 1986). Subsequent efforts by legal scholars and economists brought the economic analysis of law from the U.S. via Chinese-language publications (Feng 2000; Gu 1994; Huang 1995; Sun 1993; Zhou 1998). Economists played a pivotal role in promoting this interdisciplinary field by organizing the Chinese Law and Economics Forum from 2003 onward and establishing specialized research centers for law and economics. Scholars then increasingly moved beyond merely applying economics to theoretical legal studies. They turned their attention to analyzing practical cases and localizing law and economics research within the Chinese context. After 2000, spurred by scholars such as Zhu Suli, who actively advocated for the replacement of traditional doctrinal research with the tools of law and economics for case analysis (Zhu 2006), a growing number of academics began applying economic analysis to the study of specific legal cases. Propelled by the broader diffusion of quantitative methods across the social sciences, scholars also began to use data and a wide range of empirical methods to analyze legal phenomena (Zhou 2005; Zhou 2006a, 2006b). In recent years, an increasing number of universities have incorporated law and economics into their curricula. Alongside translations of classic textbooks from the U.S., a new series of textbooks authored by local scholars has emerged, combining canonical economic analysis with local legal practices (Chang 2019, 2023; Chang and Cheng 2020; Sang 2008, 2022; Shi 2014; Xiong 2017).

Over the years, law and economics has gradually established itself as a distinct branch in China’s legal and economics scholarship. However, compared to its well-established status in the U.S., law and economics in China has developed at a much slower pace and has played a limited role in academia. This underdevelopment stems from a combination of factors affecting its supply and demand.

1.1 The Supply Side

China’s legal tradition is rooted in the civil law system, heavily influenced by European, particularly German, jurisprudence. Legal education in China emphasizes codification, strict adherence to legal principles, and logical precision, prioritizing internal legal coherence over considering “extralegal” or socio-economic factors. Legal scholars, trained in the civil law tradition, often lack the economic background needed to conduct or understand research based on economics, not to mention mathematical and statistical methodologies. On the other hand, economists typically focus on law-related economic issues from the perspective of political economy or institutional economics, rather than addressing practical legal questions. Academic journals in China tend to be highly specialized, with publications in each field predominantly authored by scholars within that particular discipline. Unlike in the U.S., where journals such as the Journal of Legal Studies and Journal of Law and Economics provide platforms for interdisciplinary research, there are relatively few equivalent outlets in China. As legal scholars and economic scholars are interested in different questions and publish in different fields, there is little substantive dialogue between the two academic communities.

1.2 The Demand Side

Law and economics aims to delve into normative questions, placing a strong emphasis on efficiency as a fundamental value and exploring how laws can be crafted and cases decided to achieve this objective. Essentially, the economic analysis views law as a form of public policy and analyzes its impact on societal outcomes. In the U.S., judges not only serve as adjudicators but also as policymakers -- legal precedents shape future decisions and can be broadly considered as a form of public policy-making. Therefore, a deep understanding of policy-making is essential for legal practitioners, and the demand for the knowledge of the economic analysis of law is strong. The robust advancement of law and economics in the U.S. is intricately linked to the influential role of American courts and judges in shaping public policy. However, this dynamic is less pronounced in China and many other nations. In China, the Supreme People’s Court often shapes judicial interpretations based on strong policy inclinations, yet there is a notable lack of cost-benefit analysis, likely due to the fact that the judges in the Supreme Court have only received legal training and are unfamiliar with economic knowledge. At the local level, judges typically do not see themselves as policymakers; their focus is on applying existing legal provisions to address individual cases. In response to this demand, legal research in China is primarily centered on textual analysis of legal provisions, with little consideration for a policymaker’s viewpoint. This limited practical demand plays a significant role in the minimal emphasis placed on law and economics in the country.

This study attempts to describe the current landscape of law and economics research in China. It summarizes the existing literature in law and economics in China into three distinct types and examines the development and constraints associated with each. The first type is “case analysis of legal issues,” which involves applying economic concepts and models to analyze specific legal rules, legal phenomena, or individual cases, often using tools like cost-benefit analysis or game theory. The second is “quantitative analysis of the law,” which uses statistical and econometric methods to empirically examine how laws are practiced. The third is “empirical studies of the economic impact of law and regulations,” which are usually conducted by economists and examine how law, regulations, and legal reforms affect broader economic outcomes.

2 Case Analysis

The study of law and economics first gained scholarly attention through case analysis. Today, case study remains the most prevalent form of law and economics research in China. Compared to using complicated mathematical or statistical tools, case analysis has a lower entry bar, making it more accessible to scholars and audiences without formal training in economics. Case analysis primarily involves the application of basic economic principles to analyze specific legal provisions, phenomena, or cases. Common methodologies include cost-benefit analysis, basic game theory, and demand-supply analysis; these studies usually rely on the basic but important concepts in law and economics, such as rational choice, the Coase theorem, transaction costs, and externalities, and integrate them into normative research.

In the 1990s, after a decade of translating and introducing economic analysis of law concepts from the U.S., scholars in China began to move away from merely importing Western theories and started applying them within Chinese contexts. Some scholars began to analyze Chinese legal theories based on economic analysis of law (Huang 1995; Liu 1998), while others pioneered the application of law and economics to specific legal cases. Economists were the first to apply economic principles to legal phenomena and cases. For example, Zhang Shuguang and his coauthors began case studies of Chinese law in the series Case Studies in China’s Institutional Change since 1993 (Zhang 1996). Likewise, Shi Jinchuan (1996) employed law and economics models to assess the economic impact of software piracy. Subsequently, scholars including Shi Jinchuan, Huang Shaoan, Wei Jian, and Zhou Linbin incorporated law and economics concepts into the study of different legal phenomena, such as tort liability, property rights, contract, and the judicial process (Huang 1995; Huang and Li 2002; Shi and Wu 2002; Shi and Yao 2006; Wei 1999; Zhou 2001). Initially, the involvement of legal scholars in law and economics was limited, due to their lack of training in economics. Over time, a new generation of scholars, either trained overseas or having received cutting-edge education in law and economics within China, began to produce more rigorous analyses using economic methodologies (Chang 2023; Chen 2011, 2012; Sang and Dai 2017).

While a substantial body of work has emerged, much of scholarship in the economics of law in China remains loosely connected from the core of Chinese legal research, particularly the specific divisions of law. Currently, doctrinal legal research still dominates case analysis in China, with law and economics often seen as an alternative rather than a complementary approach. Many scholars feel compelled to justify the use of law and economics over traditional doctrinal approaches in their works (Dai 2018; Sang 2014).

2.1 Divergent Research Interests Between Legal and Economic Scholars

As an interdisciplinary field, law and economics attracts both legal scholars and economists, but their agendas differ significantly. Economists, particularly those specializing in institutional economics, corporate finance, or the economics of crime, typically focus on addressing economic questions by analyzing legal phenomena. Their research follows a standard approach in economics and other social sciences: identifying phenomena, building theoretical models, proposing hypotheses, and testing hypotheses with data (Wei and Yu 2006; Wei and Chu 2007; Yang 2008). Legal scholars, on the other hand, often take a doctrinal approach, incorporating concepts from law and economics into their legal analysis, much like traditional legal scholarship that interprets legal provisions or uses cases to illustrate the law (Chen 2012; Dai and Shen 2016).

This divergence is also reflected in the publication. Economists in China engaged in law and economics studies tend to publish in journals in economics and business studies, including Management World (Guanli Shijie), China Economic Quarterly (Jingjixue Jikan), Research of Institutional Economics (Zhidu Jingjixue Yanjiu), Industrial Economics Research (Chanye Jingji Yanjiu), etc., while legal scholars publish in traditional law journals. Scholars from the two disciplines rarely engage with one another, developing two largely separate bodies of literature with little cross-disciplinary dialogue.

2.2 Weak Embeddedness in Doctrinal Legal Studies

The economic analysis of law in China disproportionally concentrates on a few sub-areas of civil and commercial law, including property, torts, and contracts. There is a notable lack of law and economics research in areas like personality rights, family and marriage law, and inheritance law, which are important components in Chinese civil law. Criminal law research generally follows mainstream U.S. criminology frameworks, such as the rational crime theory and the deterrence theory, with little attention paid to indigenous aspects of criminal law, such as the costs of enforcement and adjudication, and resource allocation and coordination among judicial agencies, which are pressing issues faced by criminal justice in China (Chen 2008, 2012; Chen, Shu, and Chen 2009; Dai 2010; Wei and Song 2006; Wei and Wang 2009; Wei and Wang 2010). Constitutional and administrative law remain underexplored, if not unexplored (except Dai and Chang 2018). Procedural law receives even less attention. Studies on economic regulations, given their close connection to state economic policy and economic systems, tend to embrace law and economics methodologies more readily (Hu 2008; Lü and Liu 1998; Liu and Liao 2004; Xing 2013; Zhang 1992). Emerging fields such as intellectual property, personal information protection, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and data governance provide promising opportunities for law and economic analysis, as law-making is the primary task faced these areas, and doctrinal frameworks are still underdeveloped (Chen 2022; Dai 2019, 2021; Mao 2020).

The disconnection between legal and economic training further contributes to the detachment of economists from the doctrinal legal research agenda. Economists, unfamiliar with legal theory, tend to engage in repetitive and redundant discussions on well-established legal issues. For example, as Zhou (2007) exemplifies, some economists view land use rights as an innovative institutional development, often overlooking the historical distinction between usufructuary rights and ownership, which dates back to pre-modern China. This distinction has been thoroughly studied in both law and history. This disconnect can be attributed to the divergent training and educational backgrounds of scholars in law and economics, which are treated as distinct disciplines in China with limited cross-training, resulting in economists often overlooking the actual areas of need in legal research. Legal scholarship is fundamentally practice-oriented, wherein the analysis of case law is used to derive rules that are broadly applicable to future cases. Research from an economic perspective that overlooks the primary concerns of legal theory and fails to address the critical issues within legal scholarship will likely continue to hold a marginal position within the legal academy.

Nevertheless, there are scholars who bridge this gap by engaging with both fields. Notable examples include studies by Ding (2005) and Sang and Dai (2017), who have utilized economic methods to address legal issues of greater practical concern, such as the allocation of the burden of proof and the application of evidentiary standards. These works effectively engage with the real concerns in legal scholarship, benefiting from the authors’ familiarity with the analytical frameworks and discussions within the legal field.

2.3 Immature Localization

Many scholars in the field advocate for the localization of law and economics (Chen 2010; Zhou 2006a,b, 2007, Zhu 2006, 2019). For instance, China exhibits unique regulatory styles, such as significant governmental intervention in the market (Chen, Shu, and Chen 2010; Shi and Yao 2006), practices related to land expropriation and demolition (Wei and Wei 2009), and a series of land property right rulings specifically tailored for rural areas (Ma, Ligen, and Zhu 2008; Wei 2010, 2012, 2016). Present research largely focuses on applying Western law and economics theories to interpret these phenomena but tends to treat them as isolated or abnormal cases without a contextual understanding and further theoretical generalization. Consequently, it neither advances existing law and economic theories nor provides a systematic understanding of the unique “Chinese characteristics”. For instance, the policies granting property rights to farmers, especially the approach of treating all villagers as a collective in managing their rights, offer a context for exploring the dynamics of law and economics in collective ownership. However, scholars have yet to conceptualize and explore how this framework can inform the study of collective ownership dynamics and how policy design can establish mechanisms to alleviate the adverse consequences of collective ownership. This lack of in-depth analysis has resulted in a failure to attract broader scholarly interest, effectively narrate China’s narrative, and develop a framework for elucidating China’s legal phenomena.

3 Quantitative Analysis of the Law

Quantitative analysis of the law typically applies statistical and econometric methods to analyze the functioning of specific laws, particularly how the laws are applied in the real world, for example, how judges actually apply laws and decide cases and how they are influenced by extra-legal factors. The specific methods employed include basic statistical analysis, regression analysis, and some techniques for causal inference, such as lab and natural experimental methods.

Among legal scholars, Bai Jianjun was among the first to systematically introduce quantitative empirical methods to legal studies (Bai 2000, 2008), highlighting the importance of empirical analysis. Legal scholar Zhou Linbin authored a series of introductory articles on empirical law and economics, advocating for a shift of focus from theory to practice, promoting the adoption of quantitative methods, and calling for the establishment of a specialized discipline (Zhou 2006a, 2006b). Zhou also conducted preliminary empirical studies leveraging statistical methods (Zhou 2004). Economists also joined this empirical revolution in legal studies, gradually contributing empirical research to the field on topics such as institutional costs, regulation enforcement, and the determinants of crime (Chen, Shu, and Chen 2009; Huang, Sun, and Gong 2005; Wei and Wang 2010; Wei and Chu 2007).

As scholars from other disciplines entered the field, their research topics expanded from descriptive analysis of the law to interdisciplinary questions, shifting focus from the text of the law to the behaviors of individuals within legal processes, as well as to the governance logic of legal institutions (Chen and Su 2023; Yu 2014; Yu and Yang 2019). Recently, led by the behavioral revolution in law and economics, Chinese law and economic scholars have started to investigate scenarios in which individuals deviate from the rational assumptions underlying traditional law and economics theories (Li and Liu 2022; Liu 2018; Liu and Li 2019; Tang and Liu 2018).

In contrast to the first category of law and economics research, quantitative efforts usually apply econometric techniques to leverage legal data as evidence to test discipline-specific theories, including legal, sociological, economic, and behavioral theories. This form of empirical research explores areas that traditional legal scholarship has not engaged with, thus avoiding the need to integrate with mainstream legal scholarship or “replace” existing research paradigms. However, it also makes this line of research remain at the periphery of the field of legal studies, lacking meaningful dialogue with the core of the discipline.

3.1 Methodological Deficiency

Many empirical studies conducted by legal scholars are descriptive statistical analyses with little theoretical depth or methodological rigor. Since the concept of empirical research gained traction, numerous empirical papers have emerged, many of which simply use judicial decision data to explore how certain types of cases are adjudicated or how specific laws are applied in practice, resembling statistical reports rather than offering substantial theoretical contributions (Fang and Ren 2022; Jin and Wang 2015; Liu 2021; Ye and Zhou 2024). Many studies also conflate correlation with causation. This is often attributable to the limited formal training in social science methodologies among legal scholars.

3.2 Fragmented Disciplinaries and Fragmented Focus

Scholars in this area have diverse academic backgrounds, coming from a wide range of disciplines. Their works are also published in journals spanning multiple fields, including finance, public policy, political science, sociology, and criminology. For instance, finance scholars explore the enforcement of corporate and financial laws, and how compliance is done in actuality (Cao, McGuinness, and Xi 2021; Li and Ponticelli 2022; Xi 2023). Political scientists study the governance logic of judicial institutions and the broader political impact of the judiciary (Feng and Zeng 2022; Yang and Yu 2022; Yu 2014; Yu and Wang 2022; Yu and Yang 2019). Law and society scholars examine the interaction between legal institutions and the public (He and Su 2013; Mao and Qiao 2021). Criminologists and criminal law scholars explore various aspects of criminal behavior and judicial sentencing in criminal cases (Lao 2014, 2016, 2022; Wu 2020a, 2020b, 2021).

This interdisciplinary approach has undoubtedly expanded the scope of legal research. However, because these studies do not align with traditional legal research methods and frameworks, they receive limited attention from the legal community and often remain marginal, regarded as interdisciplinary rather than core legal scholarship.

4 Empirical Studies of the Economic Impact of Law

Empirical studies of the economic impact of the law in China emerge from economics, specifically developmental and institutional economics. It does not focus on traditional legal issues; rather, it tries to explore the relationship between law and economic development. In economic theory, the rule of law has been considered fundamental to economic growth (Acemoglu and Robinson 2012; Besley and Persson 2011; La Porta et al. 1998; North 1990). However, China presents an exception. As an authoritarian state, China has long lacked an independent judiciary. Its legal system is underdeveloped, heavily influenced by political forces, and subject to local government capture, leading to the consensus that China operates under a weak rule of law system. Despite these limitations, however, China has experienced rapid economic development, leading to the puzzling “development without rule of law” (Chen 2016; Clarke 2003, 2022; Peerenboom 2003). This paradox has attracted significant scholarly interests. Researchers explore the relationship between law and economic growth treating China as an outlier.

For economists, on the one hand, informal institutions play an important role in China’s development (Allen, Qian, and Qian 2005); on the other hand, authoritarian regimes may have strategic motivations for selectively strengthening judicial independence and proficiency (Cao, Liu, and Zhou 2023; Wang 2015). In line with China’s recent policy emphasis on “law-based governance,” this recent body of literature examines how the strengthening of legal institutions in recent years has impacted economic outcomes. A key focus of these studies is whether and how law plays a role in economic development.

Key research topics in this area include: (1) recent judicial reforms which are aimed at improving judicial independence from local government control (Cao, Liu, and Zhou 2023; Liu et al. 2022; Zhang and Liu 2023); (2) the tightening of regulations, particularly in the environmental domain (Buntaine et al. 2024; Florackis, Fu, and Wang 2023; He, Wang, and Zhang 2020); and (3) the rise of anti-corruption campaigns in recent years (Griffin, Liu, and Shu 2022; Kong and Qin 2021; Pan and Tian 2020; Zhang 2023). The institutional developments underlying these research are part of the broader “law-based governance” reforms through which the central government has used the law to enhance its control over local governments, officials, and enterprises.

Empirical studies of the economic impact of the law are primarily conducted by economists; they are closely aligned with mainstream economic research, and involve little dialogue with China’s legal community. The studies usually employ rigorous empirical methods, featuring large datasets, careful data processing, and rigorous identification designs.

4.1 Data-Driven Rather Than Question-Driven

A significant portion of studies in this category focuses on legal reforms, particularly judicial reforms. Many of these studies treat legal reforms as policy shocks. For instance, some research uses event-study or difference-in-difference frameworks to analyze the impact of establishing specialized courts (Bai et al. 2024; Lai et al. 2023; Liu 2023; Xue et al. 2023; Zhao, Yu, and Guo 2022; Zheng et al. 2024; Zhou et al. 2024). While these studies often produce statistically significant results, experts in the field can easily question their narratives, casting doubt on the validity of causal inference or the mechanisms underpinning the causal relationship. Despite their abundance, these studies frequently fall short in advancing the discipline due to their narrow focus and lack of theoretical depth.

There is a tendency in this research to be data-driven, where scholars select research questions mainly based on the availability of the data, use reform settings opportunistically, and cherry-pick variables that yield significant statistical results. One key factor underlying this problem is the limited availability of publicly accessible data in China, which narrows academic attention to a very specific subset of research topics. Moreover, legal changes in China are usually either endogenous or implemented uniformly across the country, making it difficult to meet the requirements for causal inference. Scholars often rely on the small group of legal reforms that are piloted in select regions as exogenous shocks. This approach narrows the scope of research and contributes to a lack of diversity in the studies conducted.

4.2 Questions Surrounding the Data’s Reliability and Availability

Many of the studies rely on publicly available judicial documents, as this is the most comprehensive and extensive dataset currently available in the legal domain. Judicial documents are also the largest-scale public release of Chinese government documents to date. However, China’s official data has long been criticized for potential manipulation, and judicial document data suffer from issues of selective disclosure (Liebman et al. 2020; Liebman et al. 2023; Tang 2018; Wu et al. 2022). According to official sources, documents with “corrosive social impacts” may be withheld (Cao, Liu, and Zhou 2023). Moreover, disclosure rates vary by case type, leading to data selection biases. Yet, more recent studies have successfully developed ways to address the selective reporting problem (Cao, Liu, and Zhou 2023; Liebman et al. 2020).

A more substantial issue lies in the lack of comprehensive and reliable data covering the entire judicial process. For example, criminal records in China are not available to any scholar in China, limiting the scope and depth of the research of both criminal law and criminology. Another example is the study of legislation. The negotiation process among various interest groups and government departments involved in legislation is entirely opaque. Although during legal revisions, public opinions are officially solicited, with laws affecting citizens’ vital interests often garnering millions of responses, these public opinions and advice remain undisclosed, leaving no opportunity for the study of public sentiment, legal consciousness, and the interaction between institutions and society.

In recent years, the data that can be used for the study of the law have also become increasingly limited, making it even more challenging to conduct empirical studies. Judicial transparency in China resembles more of a campaign-style policy rather than a long-term commitment. Since 2020, the Supreme People’s Court has gradually stepped away from transparency, resulting in a sharp decline in the disclosure of judicial documents. As a consequence, post-2020 judicial data are often considered unrepresentative, leading many studies to avoid using data from this period (Cao, Liu, and Zhou 2023; Liu et al. 2022).

5 Conclusion and Discussion

Overall, the development of law and economics in China faces significant challenges on both theoretical and empirical fronts. For case studies, the lack of integration with China’s doctrinal legal framework, combined with insufficient cross-disciplinary dialogue, has resulted in a body of research that is often marginalized within both legal and economics scholarship. Quantitative analysis of the law is constrained by methodological deficiencies and interdisciplinarity. Empirical research on the economic impact of law is further hindered by the limited availability of publicly accessible and reliable judicial data. Much of the research is narrowly focused on topics dictated by available data, leading to a lack of diversity and depth in addressing fundamental legal and economic issues.

Law and economics will continue to struggle for greater recognition and impact within China’s academic and policy-making communities. This strand of research typically does not yield universally applicable practical rules and is often perceived as an intellectual exercise with greater performative than practical significance (Che 2021). As long as legal education, research, and practice remain dominated by doctrinal studies, this marginalization is likely to continue.

However, the economic analysis of law is an intellectually stimulating discipline that has attracted an increasing number of scholars. These scholars are consistently producing high-quality research with international influence, thereby expanding their reach. In recent years, with the surge of big data and artificial intelligence, the Chinese government has further emphasized data-driven policy-making and public governance. It is clear that the Chinese academic community, including the legal academia, is also placing a higher importance on research using data and empirical methods than ever before. These trends provide significant opportunities for the development of law and economics, particularly in the realm of quantitative research.

Furthermore, for empirical researchers, China’s recent extensive legal reforms aimed at strengthening legality still remain a rich field for exploration. Although access to primary judicial data in China is limited, advancements in data scraping and mining techniques enable scholars to build proprietary datasets from alternative sources. China’s social media platforms, for example, provide a vast reservoir of potential information. Zhang and Pan (2019) used publicly available social media data from China to infer collective action events. Similarly, recent work by Liu, Peng, Wang, and Xu (2025) used publicly available information on lawyers from the Ministry of Justice, cross-referenced with information on judges and lawyers found in court rulings, to create a comprehensive database of revolving-door lawyers in China and examine their impact on judicial decisions and social equality. These studies feature the potential of China as a rich field for research in law and economics. We see both challenges and opportunities in this field.

Corresponding author: Xiaoping Wu, HKU, SJD student at the Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China, E-mail: wuxp@connect.hku.hk

References

Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson. 2012. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. New York: Crown Currency.Search in Google Scholar

Allen, F., J. Qian, and M. Qian. 2005. “Law, Finance, and Economic Growth in China.” Journal of Financial Economics 77 (1): 57–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2004.06.010.Search in Google Scholar

Bai, Jianjun. 2000. ““On Empirical Legal Analysis” (论法律实证分析).” China Legal Science (《中国法学》) (4): 30–40.Search in Google Scholar

Bai, Jianjun. 2008. Methods of Empirical Legal Research (《法律实证研究方法》). Beijing: Peking University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bai, M., L. Shen, Y. Li, and C. F. J. Yu. 2024. “Does Legal Justice Promote Stakeholder Justice? Evidence from a Judicial Reform in China.” International Review of Financial Analysis 94: 103326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2024.103326.Search in Google Scholar

Besley, Timothy, and Torsten Persson. 2011. Pillars of Prosperity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400840526Search in Google Scholar

Buntaine, M. T., M. Greenstone, G. He, M. Liu, S. Wang, and B. Zhang. 2024. “Does the Squeaky Wheel Get More Grease? the Direct and Indirect Effects of Citizen Participation on Environmental Governance in China.” The American Economic Review 114 (3): 815–50. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20221215.Search in Google Scholar

Cao, Ning, Paul B. McGuinness, and Chao Xi. 2021. “Does Securities Enforcement Improve Disclosure Quality? An Examination of Chinese Listed Companies’ Restatement Activities.” Journal of Corporate Finance 67: 101877, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101877.Search in Google Scholar

Cao, Guo, Chong Liu, and Li-An Zhou. 2023. “Suing the Government under Weak Rule of Law: Evidence from Administrative Litigation Reform in China.” Journal of Public Economics 222: 104895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2023.104895.Search in Google Scholar

Chang, Yun-chien. 2019. The Economic Analysis of Property Law (《物权法之经济分析》). Beijing: Peking University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Chang, Yun-chien. 2023. Economic Analysis of Law: A Methodological Primer (《法经济分析--方法论20讲》). Beijing: Peking University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Chang, Yun-chien, and Jinhua Cheng. 2020. Introduction to Empirical Legal Studies: A Beginner’s Reader (《法律实证研究入门读本》). Beijing: Law Press.Search in Google Scholar

Che, Hao. 2021. “Legal Dogmatics and Social Science—An Exploration Using Criminal Law as an Example” (法教义学与社会科学——以刑法学为例的展开). China Law Review (中国法律评论) (5): 118–39.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, A. H. 2016. “China’s Long March Towards Rule of Law or China’s Turn Against Law?” The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law 4 (1): 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjcl/cxw003.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Chunliang. 2012. “Labor Market Conditions and Crime: Theory, Simulation, and Evidence from Zhejiang” (《劳动市场状况与犯罪:理论、仿真与浙江经验》). Zhejiang Social Sciences (《浙江社会科学》) (1): 2–13.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Yili. 2008. “An Empirical Study of China’s Crime Rates: A Quantitative Analysis from 1978 to 2005” (《中国犯罪率的实证研究:基于1978-2005年的计量分析》). PhD diss., Shandong University.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Gang, Li Shu, and Yili Chen. 2009. ““A Study on the Impact of Population Mobility on Crime Rates” (人口流动对犯罪率的影响研究).” Chinese Journal of Population Science (《中国人口科学》) (4): 102–12.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Ruoying. 2010. “Empirical Research on Chinese Law and Economics: Paths and Challenges” (《中国法律经济学的实证研究——路径与挑战》). Law and Social Sciences (《法律和社会科学》) 7 (2): 1–24.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Ruoying. 2011. “Information Disclosure—The Third Dimension of the Land Expropriation System” (《信息公开——强制征地制度的第三维度》). Peking University Law Journal (《中外法学》) (2): 270–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/20517483.2019.1705635. Reprinted in Constitutional and Administrative Law (人大复印资料《宪法学·行政法学》), no. 9.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Ruoying. 2012. ““A Law and Economics Perspective on ‘Betting Agreements’ in Private Equity Investments—With Comments on China’s First Judicial Decision” (私募投资中‘对赌协议’的法经济学思考——兼评我国首个司法判决).” Journal of Guangdong University of Business Studies (《广东商学院学报》) (6): 82–90.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Yuzhao. 2022. ““A Law and Economics Analysis of Personal Information Protection Liability on Internet Platforms” (《网络平台个人信息保护责任的法律经济学分析》).” Beijing Social Sciences (《北京社会科学》) 0 (10): 72–80.10.12677/OJLS.2022.105093Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Gang, Li Shu, and YiliChen. 2010. ““Fiscal Bias in China’s Crime Governance: Choosing the ’Stick’ or the ’Carrot’?” (中国犯罪治理的财政支出偏向: 选择“大棒”还是“胡萝卜”).” Nankai Economic Studies (《南开经济研究》) (2): 117–35, https://doi.org/10.14116/j.nkes.2010.02.002.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Tianhao, and Yipo Su. 2023. ““The Governance Effectiveness and Institutional Logic of Intellectual Property Courts in China” (我国知识产权法院的治理实效与制度逻辑).” Chinese Journal of Law (《法学研究》) (1): 179–204.Search in Google Scholar

Clarke, D. 2003. “Economic Development and the Rights Hypothesis: The China Problem.” The American Journal of Comparative Law 51 (1): 89–111. https://doi.org/10.2307/3649141.Search in Google Scholar

Clarke, D. 2022. “Order and Law in China.” University of Illinois Law Review 2022 (2): 541.Search in Google Scholar

Dai, Xin. 2010. ““Supplementary Deterrence and Compensation-Based Sentence Reduction” (《威慑补充与赔偿减刑》).” Chinese Social Sciences (《中国社会科学》) (3): 127–43.Search in Google Scholar

Dai, Xin. 2018. ““‘Doctrinal Heuristic’ Bias and Its Correction—A Case Study of ‘Suicide Research’ in Legal Scholarship” (《‘教义学启发式’思维的偏误与纠正——以法学中的‘自杀研究’为例》).” Studies in Law and Business (《法商研究》) (5): 80–92.Search in Google Scholar

Dai, Xin. 2019. “The Dimensional Expansion and Issue Shift of Data Privacy: A Law and Economics Perspective” (《数据隐私问题的维度扩展与议题转换:法律经济学视角》). SJTU Law Review (《交大法学》) (1): 35–50. https://doi.org/10.19375/j.cnki.31-2075/d.2019.01.003.Search in Google Scholar

Dai, Xin. 2021. “A Relational Approach to Data Sovereignty” (《数据界权的关系进路》). Peking University Law Journal (《中外法学》) (6): 1561–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/20517483.2021.2020497. Reprinted in Social Science Digest (《社会科学文摘》).Search in Google Scholar

Dai, Xin, and Xinwang Shen. 2016. ““How Do Norms ‘Take Root’?—The Future of Legal Implementation and the Reality of Internet Platform Governance” (《规范如何“落地”——法律实施的未来与互联网平台治理的现实》).” China Law Review (《中国法律评论》) (4): 89–106.Search in Google Scholar

Dai, Xin, and Yun-ChienChang. 2018. ““Proportionality Principle or Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Critical Reconstruction of Legal Methods” (比例原则还是成本收益分析：法学方法的批判性重构).” Peking University Law Journal (《中外法学》) 30 (6): 1519–45.Search in Google Scholar

Ding, Li. 2005. ““Verification Technology, Incentives, and the Allocation of the Burden of Proof—A Case Study of Medical Malpractice Disputes” (核实技术、激励与举证责任配置——以医疗事故纠纷为例).” Peking University Law Journal (《中外法学》) (4): 479–87.Search in Google Scholar

Fang, Shaokun, and Yiduo Ren. 2022. “A Judicial Empirical Study of Disputes Over Rural Collective Assets and Shares: An Analysis of 129 Judgments” (农村集体资产股权纠纷的司法实证研究——基于 129 份裁判文书的整理分析). Hebei Law Science (河北法学) 40 (04): 2–17.Search in Google Scholar

Feng, Yujun. 2000. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Law (《法律的成本效益分析》). Lanzhou: Lanzhou University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Feng, Yuqing, and Yu Zeng. 2022. “Stability Justice: Petitioners versus Non-Petitioners in China’s Criminal Adjudication.” Law and Society Review 56 (4): 555–79, https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12633.Search in Google Scholar

Florackis, C., X. Fu, and J. Wang. 2023. “Political connections, environmental violations and punishment: Evidence from heavily polluting firms.” International Review of Financial Analysis 88: 102698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102698.Search in Google Scholar

Griffin, J. M., C. Liu, and T. Shu. 2022. “Is the Chinese anticorruption campaign authentic? Evidence from corporate investigations.” Management Science 68 (10): 7248–73. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4181.Search in Google Scholar

Gu, Peidong. 1994. Exploration of Law and Economics (《法学与经济学的探索》). Beijing: People’s Public Security University of China Press.Search in Google Scholar

He, G., S. Wang, and B. Zhang. 2020. “Watering down environmental regulation in China.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 135 (4): 2135–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjaa024.Search in Google Scholar

He, X., and Y. Su. 2013. “Do the “haves” come out ahead in Shanghai courts?” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 10 (1): 120–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12005.Search in Google Scholar

Hu, Yuancong. 2008. “Legal Economic Analysis of State Intervention: A Cognitive Perspective Based on Economic Law” (《国家干预行为的法经济学分析——基于经济法的认知视角》). Henan Social Sciences (《河南社会科学》) (2): 108–11.Search in Google Scholar

Huang, Shaoan. 1995. “Introduction to Property Rights Economics” (《产权经济学导论》). Jinan: Shandong People’s Publishing House.Search in Google Scholar

Huang, Shaoan. 1995. “From Land Use Rights Under the Household Contract Responsibility System to ‘Quasi Land Equity’ in the Shareholding Cooperative System” (《从家庭承包制的土地经营权到股份合作制“准土地股权”》).” Economic Research (《经济研究》) 7: 32–37.Search in Google Scholar

Huang, Shaoan, and Zhenyu Li. 2002. ““An Economic Analysis of Reward Advertisements” (悬赏广告的法经济学分析).” Economic Research (《经济研究》) (5): 58–65.Search in Google Scholar

Huang, Shaoan, Shengmin Sun, and Mingbo Gong. 2005. ““The Impact of China’s Land Property Rights System on Agricultural Economic Growth: An Empirical Analysis of Agricultural Productivity in Mainland China from 1949 to 1978” (中国土地产权制度对农业经济增长的影响-对1949-1978年中国大陆农业生产效率的实证分析).” Social Sciences in China (《中国社会科学》) (3): 38–47.Search in Google Scholar

Jin, Hai, and Yingfang Wang. 2015. “Empirical Study on the Crime of Environmental Pollution: Based on 198 Judgments of the Crime of Environmental Pollution from China Judgments Online” (污染环境罪实证研究——以中国裁判文书网198份污染环境罪裁判文书为样本). Journal of Jishou University (Social Science Edition) (吉首大学学报(社会科学版)) 36 (04): 13–9.Search in Google Scholar

Kong, D., and N. Qin. 2021. “China’s Anticorruption Campaign and Entrepreneurship.” The Journal of Law and Economics 64 (1): 153–80. https://doi.org/10.1086/711313.Search in Google Scholar

Lai, S., L. Yang, Q. Wang, and H. D. Anderson. 2023. “Judicial Independence and Corporate Innovation: Evidence from the Establishment of Circuit Courts.” Journal of Corporate Finance 80: 102424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2023.102424.Search in Google Scholar

Lao, J. 2014. “An Empirical Study of the Strict Enforcement of Recidivist Sentencing in China” (我国累犯从严实效之实证研究). Peking University Law Journal (中外法学) 26 (6): 1648–76.Search in Google Scholar

Lao, J. 2016. “The Complexities of Prior Record, Current Crime Type, and Hukou Status in China: Interactive Effects in Sentencing.” Peking University Law Journal 4 (1): 125–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/20517483.2016.1174437.Search in Google Scholar

Lao, J. 2022. “Extralegal Factors in Sentencing and Sentencing Standardization Reform” (量刑的法外因素与量刑规范化改革). Chinese Criminal Law Journal (中国刑事法杂志) 2: 91–107.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Xueyao, and Zhuang Liu. 2022. ““Techniques of Rationalization: Judicial Reasoning and Bias in Judgments” (矫饰的技术:司法说理与判决中的偏见).” China Law Review (《中国法律评论》) (2): 91–106.Search in Google Scholar

Li, B., and J. Ponticelli. 2022. “Going Bankrupt in China.” Review of Finance 26 (3): 449–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfab023.Search in Google Scholar

Liebman, B. L., M. E. Roberts, R. E. Stern, and A. Z. Wang. 2020. “Mass Digitization of Chinese Court Decisions: How to Use Text as Data in the Field of Chinese Law.” Journal of Law and Courts 8 (2): 177–201. https://doi.org/10.1086/709916.Search in Google Scholar

Liebman, B., R. Stern, X. Wu, and M. Roberts. 2023. “Rolling Back Transparency in China’s Courts.” Columbia Law Review 123: 2407.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Dahong. 1998. “An Economic Analysis of Economic Illegal Conduct” (经济违法行为的法经济学分析). Journal of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law (《中南财经大学学报》) (3): 76–80.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Zhuang. 2018. “Does Reason Writing Reduce Decision Bias? Experimental Evidence from Judges in China.” The Journal of Legal Studies 47 (1): 83–118. https://doi.org/10.1086/696879.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Kexue. 2021. “The Operation Status and Improvement of the System of Experts Appearing in Criminal Proceedings: Based on a Study of 88 Judgments” (刑事诉讼中鉴定人出庭制度的运行现状及其改进——以88份裁判文书为研究样本). China Applied Jurisprudence (中国应用法学) (05): 149–61.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Yurou. 2023. “Judicial Independence and Crash Risk: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in China.” Journal of Corporate Finance 83: 102490, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2023.102490.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Dahong, and Jianqiu Liao. 2004. The Revolution of Tax Law: An Economic Analysis (《税法的革命:法经济学分析》). Beijing: Law Press.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Zhuang, and Yueyao Li. 2019. ““Legal Techniques for Rationalizing Biased Judicial Decisions: Evidence from Experiments with Real Judges” (通讯作者).” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (3): 630–70, https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12229.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Ernest, Yi Lu, Wenwei Peng, and Shaoda Wang. 2022. “Judicial Independence, Local Protectionism, and Economic Integration: Evidence from China.” National Bureau of Economic Research, https://doi.org/10.3386/w30432.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, J. Z., W. Peng, S. Wang, and D. Xu. 2025. “The Law and Economics of Lawyers: Evidence from the Revolving Door in China’s Judicial System.” NBER Working Paper No. 33708. National Bureau of Economic Research.10.3386/w33708Search in Google Scholar

Lü, Zhongmei, and Dahong Liu. 1998. Legal and Economic Analysis of Economic Law (《经济法的法学与法经济学分析》). Beijing: China Procuratorate Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ma, Xiupeng, Chen Ligen, and Xinhua, Zhu. 2008. “A Law and Economics Analysis of the Transfer of Rural Collective Construction Land Use Rights” (农村集体建设用地使用权流转的法经济学分析). Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University (Social Science Edition) (《南京农业大学学报(社会科学版)》) (2): 63–8.Search in Google Scholar

Mao, Hao. 2020. “The Economics of China’s Patent System: From Disciplinary Integration to Scientific Decision-Making” (《中国专利制度经济学: 从学科融合到科学决策》). Studies in Science of Science (《科学学研究》) 38 (11): 1976–86. https://doi.org/10.16192/j.cnki.1003-2053.2020.11.007.Search in Google Scholar

Mao, W., and S. Qiao. 2021. “Legal Doctrine and Judicial Review of Eminent Domain in China.” Law & Social Inquiry 46 (3): 826–59. https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2020.41.Search in Google Scholar

North, Douglas. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511808678Search in Google Scholar

Olivier, J. M. 1986. Law and Economics (《法律和经济》). Translated by Zhang Yuqing, edited by Ouyang Qing, 1st ed. Wuhan: Wuhan University Press.Search in Google Scholar

La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, A. Shleifer, and R. W. Vishny. 1998. “Law and Finance.” Journal of Political Economy 106 (6): 1113–55. https://doi.org/10.1086/250042.Search in Google Scholar

Pan, X., and G. G. Tian. 2020. “Political Connections and Corporate Investments: Evidence from the Recent Anti-Corruption Campaign in China.” Journal of Banking & Finance 119: 105108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2017.03.005.Search in Google Scholar

Peerenboom, R. 2003. “The X-Files: Past and Present Portrayals of China’s Alien Legal System.” Washington University Global Studies Law Review 2: 37.10.2139/ssrn.374040Search in Google Scholar

Sang, Benqian. 2008. Legal Theory in the Fog: Using High-Profile Cases as Materials (《理论法学的迷雾:以轰动案例为素材》). Beijing: Law Press.Search in Google Scholar

Sang, Benqian. 2014. ““Gift Promises from the Perspective of Law and Economics: Reinterpreting Article 186 of the Contract Law” (法律经济学视野中的赠与承诺:重解《合同法》第186条).” Legal Science (《法律科学》) (4): 51–8.Search in Google Scholar

Sang, Benqian. 2022. A Brief History of Law: The Deep Logic of Human Institutional Civilization (《法律简史:人类制度文明的深层逻辑》). Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company (生活·读书·新知三联书店).Search in Google Scholar

Sang, Benqian, and Xin Dai. 2017. ““Truth, Consequences, and ‘Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’—The ‘Fudan Poisoning Case’ as an Example” (《真相、后果与‘排除合理怀疑’——以‘复旦投毒案’为例》).” Science of Law (《法律科学》) (3): 16–30.Search in Google Scholar

Shi, Jinchuan. 1996. ““An Economic Analysis of the Determination of Firms’ Profit Losses in Software Piracy Cases” (计算机软件盗窃案中厂商收益损失确定的经济学分析).” Economic Research (《经济研究》) (11): 74–80.Search in Google Scholar

Shi, Jinchuan, and Xiaolu Wu. 2002. ““An Economic Analysis of the Establishment of Product Liability Systems: Reflections on the ‘Mitsubishi Pajero Incident’” (产品责任制度建立的经济学分析——对“三菱帕杰罗事件”的思考).” Economic Research (《经济研究》) (4): 60–7.Search in Google Scholar

Shi, Jinchuan, and Ruqing Yao. 2006. “Linking and Delinking Ownership and Appropriation: A Case Study of Water Resource Utilization in the Tarim River Basin” (所有权与先占行为的挂钩和脱钩———塔里木河流域水资源利用的案例研究). Journal of Institutional Economics (《制度经济学研究》) (4): 35–50.Search in Google Scholar

Shi, Jinchuan. 2014. Fun Stories in Law and Economics (《法律经济学趣谈》). Nanjing: Jiangsu People’s Publishing House.Search in Google Scholar

Sun, Lin. 1993. Law and Economics (《法律经济学》). Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tang, Yingmao. 2018. “Judicial Transparency and Its Determinants: A Data Analysis from China Judgements Online” (司法公开及其决定因素:基于中国裁判文书网的数据分析). Tsinghua Law Journal (清华法学) 12 (04): 35–47.Search in Google Scholar

Tang, Yingmao, and Zhuang Liu. 2018. ““Does Courtroom Live Streaming Affect Impartiality? Experimental Research Based on a Western Chinese Court” (庭审直播是否影响公正审判? 基于西部某法院的实验研究).” Tsinghua Law Journal (《清华法学》) 15 (5): 146–62.Search in Google Scholar

Wang, J. 2015. “Managing Social Stability: The Perspective of a Local Government in China.” Journal of East Asian Studies (15): 1–25.10.1017/S159824080000415XSearch in Google Scholar

Wei, Jian. 1999. ““The Hand Formula: An Economic Analysis of Negligence Standards” (汉德公式:过失侵权标准的经济学分析).” Shandong Judgment (《山东审判》) (2): 63–4.Search in Google Scholar

Wei, Jian and Xiaoli, Yu. 2006. ““A Law and Economics Analysis of Mandatory Liability Insurance for Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents” (机动车交通事故强制责任保险的法经济学分析).” Academic Research (《学术研究》) (10): 71–6.Search in Google Scholar

Wei, Jian and Yankai, Song. 2006. ““Theory of Penal Deterrence: Past, Present, and Future” (《刑罚威慑理论:过去、现在和未来》).” Study and Exploration (《学习与探索》) (4): 193–7.Search in Google Scholar

Wei, Jian and An Wang. 2009. ““The Impact of Income Distribution Gaps on Crime Rates under the Crime Threshold and Deterrence Effect” (《犯罪门槛和防御效应下收入分配差距对犯罪率的影响》).” Journal of Guangdong University of Business Studies (《广东商学院学报》) (3): 37–45.Search in Google Scholar

Wei, Jian and Song Wei. 2009. ““Comprehensive Use of Property Rules and Liability Rules to Protect the Interests of Displaced Persons” (综合运用财产规则和责任规则保护被拆迁人利益).” Journal of Institutional Economics (《制度经济学研究》) (22): 154–63.Search in Google Scholar

Wei, Jian and Xiaowen, Wang. 2010. ““An Analysis of the Factors Influencing Migrant Workers’ Property Crimes in China: 1987–2008” (《中国农民工财产犯罪的影响因素分析: 1987–2008》).” Shandong Economy (《山东经济》) (6): 48–54.Search in Google Scholar

Wei, Jian. 2010. ““Fragmented Rights under Embedding and Contestation: The Protection of Dispossessed Farmers’ Rights” (《嵌入和争夺下的权利破碎:失地农民权益的保护》).” Legal Forum (《法学论坛》) (6): 91–7.Search in Google Scholar

Wei, Jian. 2012. ““How Do the Strong Acknowledge the Excessive Demands of the Weak: The Claims of Dispossessed Farmers and the Government’s Response” (《强者何以认可弱者的超限利益主张:失地农民的利益主张与政府的应对》).” Journal of Social Sciences (《社会科学辑刊》) (6): 99–106.Search in Google Scholar

Wei, Jian, and Guanghui Zhang. 2016. “Farmers’ Land Property Rights and Urbanization” (农民土地财产权利与人口城镇化). Academic Monthly (《学术月刊》) 48 (3): 57–65. Reprinted in Socialist Economic Theory and Practice (《社会主义经济理论与实践》), 2016 (06).Search in Google Scholar

Wei, Jian, and Hongli Chu. 2007. ““Minimizing Entrepreneurial Costs for Shareholders and the False Protection of Creditors’ Interests: A Law and Economics Analysis of the Company Capital System” (股东创业成本最小化与债权人利益的虚假保护——公司资本制度的法经济学分析).” Frontiers of Thought (《思想战线》) (2): 52–8.Search in Google Scholar

Wu, X., M. E. Roberts, R. E. Stern, B. L. Liebman, A. Gupta, and L. Sanford. 2022. “Augmenting Serialized Bureaucratic Data: The Case of Chinese Courts.” 21st Century China Center Research Paper (2022-11).10.2139/ssrn.4124433Search in Google Scholar

Wu, Yuhao. 2020a. “On the Effect of the Chinese Version of Speedy Trial and Plea Bargaining Pilot Programs: Observation from DUI Cases in Fujian Province.” Crime, Law and Social Change 74 (4): 457–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-020-09904-3.Search in Google Scholar

Wu, Yuhao. 2020b. “The Empirical Study of Deterrence Theory” (刑罚威慑的理论重构与实证检验). Journal of National Prosecutors College (国家检察官学院学报) (3): 117–37. Reprinted in Criminal Law Review (刑事法学), no. 9.Search in Google Scholar

Wu, Yuhao. 2021. “Boundary of Discretion in Sentencing: Collective Experience, Individual Decision, and Deviation Identification” (量刑自由裁量权的边界:集体经验、个体决策与偏差识别). Chinese Journal of Law (法学研究) 43 (6): 109–29.Search in Google Scholar

Xi, Chao. 2023. “Related Party Transactions and the Majority-of-the-Minority Rule: Data-Driven Evidence from China and Implications for Europe.” Journal of Business Law 25 (4): 309–36.Search in Google Scholar

Xing, Huiqiang. 2013. “Legal Economic Explanation of the Non-Litigation Nature of Macroeconomic Control” (《宏观调控行为不可诉的法律经济学解释》). Journal of Economic Law Research (《经济法研究》) 12: 129–46.Search in Google Scholar

Xiong, Bingyuan. 2017. Economic Explanation of Law: The Sword and the Dragon for Legal Scholars (《法的经济解释--法律人的倚天屠龙》). Beijing: Oriental Publishing House.Search in Google Scholar

Xue, X., H. Yang, X. Yang, J. Zhang, X. Zhao, and Y. Wang. 2023. “Judicial Independence and Corporate Employment: Evidence from China.” Finance Research Letters 58: 104601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.104601.Search in Google Scholar

Yang, Zhili. 2008. ““A Law and Economics Analysis of Liquidated Damages” (《违约金的法经济学分析》).” Journal of Institutional Economics (《制度经济学研究》) (1): 108–24.Search in Google Scholar

Yang, Hui, and Xiaohong Yu. 2022. ““A Re-examination of Influencing Factors of Legislative Efficiency in China—An Empirical Analysis Based on the Legislative Plans of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (1991–2019)” (《中国立法效率影响因素的再审视——基于全国人大常委会立法规划的实证分析（1991—2019年）》).” China Law Review (《中国法律评论》) (2): 60–76.Search in Google Scholar

Ye, Xiaoqin, and Yijie Zhou. 2024. “A Study on Factors Related to Conviction in Physical Assaults Among Family Members: An Empirical Analysis of 349 Judgments” (家庭成员之间身体侵害行为定罪相关因素研究——基于349份裁判文书的实证分析). Nanjing University Law Review (南大法学) 2024 (04): 1–15.Search in Google Scholar

Yu, Xiaohong. 2014. “Strategic Compliance: How Chinese Courts Promote Administrative Litigation” (策略性服从:我国法院如何推进行政诉讼). Tsinghua Law Journal (《清华法学》) 8 (04): 103–24. Reprinted in China Social Science Digest and Replicated Journals of Renmin University.Search in Google Scholar

Yu, Xiaohong, and Xiang Wang. 2022. “Caught Between Professionalism and Populism: A Big-data Analysis of Lay Participation System in China.” China Review 22 (3): 167–202.Search in Google Scholar

Yu, Xiaohong, and Hui Yang. 2019. “Local Governance Logic in the Context of Supervision System Reform: An Empirical Analysis Based on the Practice of Local Supervision Commissions (2016–2018)” (监察体制改革视阈下的地方治理逻辑——基于地方监察委实践的实证分析 (2016–2018)). Journal of Governance Studies (《治理研究》) 35 (06): 85–97.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, P. 2023. “Anti-Corruption Campaign, Political Connections, and Court Bias: Evidence from Chinese Corporate Lawsuits.” Journal of Public Economics 222: 104861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2023.104861.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Han, and Jennifer Pan. 2019. “CASM: A Deep-Learning Approach for Identifying Collective Action Events with Text and Image Data from Social Media.” Sociological Methodology 49 (1): 1–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081175019860244.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Shouwen. 1992. “An Economic Law and Economics Analysis” (《经济法学的法律经济学分析》). Legal Studies (《法学研究》) (5): 27–33.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Shuguang. 1996. Case Studies of Institutional Change in China (《中国制度变迁的案例研究》). Shanghai: Shanghai People's Publishing House.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Yuxia, and John Zhuang Liu. 2023. “Rise of the Chinese Judiciary and Its Limits: Administrative Litigation in the Reform Period.” Available at SSRN 4696197: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4696197 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4696197.10.2139/ssrn.4696197Search in Google Scholar

Zhao, D., A. Yu, and J. Guo. 2022. “Judicial Institutions, Local Protection and Market Segmentation: Evidence from the Establishment of Interprovincial Circuit Tribunals in China.” China Economic Review 75: 101829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2022.101829.Search in Google Scholar

Zheng, P., Z. Li, Z. Zhuang, and B. Lin. 2024. “Judicial Independence and Growth Investors’ Decisions.” Finance Research Letters 62: 105206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.105206.Search in Google Scholar

Zhou, Linbin. 1998. Outline of Law and Economics: Economic Analysis of the Constitution and Operation of China’s Economic Law (《法律经济学论纲: 中国经济法律构成和运行的经济分析》). Beijing: Peking University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Zhou, Linbin. 2001. ““A Cost Analysis of Court Mediation Systems” (法院调解制度的成本分析).” Application of Law (《法律适用》) (12): 21–23.Search in Google Scholar

Zhou, Linbin. 2004. “An Empirical Analysis of China’s Private Remedy System: From Qualitative to Quantitative” (我国私力救济制度的实证分析:从定性到定量). Journal of Institutional Economics (《制度经济学研究》) (3): 174–96.Search in Google Scholar

Zhou, Linbin. 2005. ““From Legal Insufficiency to the Advancement of Law and Economics—On the Establishment of Law and Economics Courses” (从法学不自足到法律经济学的推进——兼论法律经济学课程的设置).” Journal of Sun Yat-sen University (《中山大学学报》) (4): 100–105.Search in Google Scholar

Zhou, Linbin. 2006a. ““Practical Research Issues in Chinese Law and Economics” (中国法律经济学的实务研究问题).” Academic Research (《学术研究》) (10): 64–70.Search in Google Scholar

Zhou, Linbin. 2006b. “Quantitative Analysis Problems in Chinese Law and Economics Research” (中国法律经济学研究中的定量分析问题). Journal of Institutional Economics (《制度经济学研究》) (4): 19–34.Search in Google Scholar

Zhou, Linbin. 2007. ““The ’Non-Legalization’ Research Issues in Chinese Law and Economics” (中国法律经济学的“非法学化”研究问题).” Law Review (《法学评论》) (1): 25–33.Search in Google Scholar

Zhou, Z., X. Zhou, X. Zhang, and W. Chen. 2024. “Judicial Waves, Ethical Shifts: Bankruptcy Courts and Corporate ESG Performance.” Journal of Business Ethics: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05780-2.Search in Google Scholar

Zhu, Suli. 2006. “Social Transformation and Chinese Academic Tradition—Preface to Law and Social Sciences” (社会转型中的中国学术传统-《法律和社会科学》发刊词). Law and Social Sciences (《法律和社会科学》), Vol 1. Law Press (法律出版社).Search in Google Scholar

Zhu, Suli. 2019. Right and Wrong: Jurisprudence in Individual Cases (《是非与曲直:个案中的法理》). Beijing: Peking University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2025-05-23

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/ajle-2025-2004

Keywords for this article

economic analysis of law; case analysis; quantitative analysis; legal scholarship; empirical legal studies

Creative Commons

BY 4.0