Volume 14, Issue 1 - 18th Annual AsLEA Conference on October 21 and 22, 2022 in South Korea at the Seoul National University; Topics on: Institutions, Law and Economic Development; Guest Editors: Duol Kim (Myongji University) and Masaki Iwasaki (Seoul National University)

The usual narrative is backlash to artificial intelligence (AI). A recent study found that when judges were given decision-support, it ended up increasing disparities–not because the algorithm was biased–in fact the algorithm would have resulted in lower disparities. But the judges selectively paid attention to the algorithm, which resulted in greater disparities. This article argues for an incremental approach leveraging recent theoretical insights from social preference economics. The core insight is that judges are moral decision-makers–you’re right or wrong, good or bad–and to understand what motivates these decision-makers, one might turn to self-image motives–a topic of active behavioral research in recent years. Each stage leverages motives related to the self: self-image, self-improvement, self-understanding, and ego. In stage 1, people use AI as a support tool, speeding up existing processes (for example, by prefilling forms). Once they’re used to this, they can more easily accept an added functionality (Stage 2) in which AI becomes a choice monitor, pointing out choice inconsistencies and reminding the human of her prior choices in similar situations. Stage 3 elevates the AI to the role of a more general coach, providing outcome feedback on choices and highlighting decision patterns. Then, in stage 4, the AI brings in other people’s decision histories and patterns, serving as a platform for a community of experts. This framework contrasts with the current framework where the AI simply recommends an optimal decision.

Technological innovations can significantly impact market structures and the behavior of actors, necessitating legal changes. However, in the face of technological changes brought by sharing economy, there is a differential in the responsiveness of rule-making institutions across different jurisdictions. This article analyses the rule-making institutions that allow for the regulatory changes procured by Uber and the institutional impediments that may restrict jurisdiction in accommodating this type of crowd-based technological disrupters. Uber’s non-adoption in Hong Kong is compared to its success in the United States to evaluate the limitations of rule-making institutions in responding to the legal change required by sharing economy companies. Changes in the rule-making institutions themselves may be needed to accelerate technological innovations and economic growth. This article suggests that there is a lack of institutional adaptability in Hong Kong, where the rule-making institutions are unable to facilitate potential regulatory reform. While the feasibility of changing a particular jurisdiction’s electoral system and political systems may be low, jurisdictions can improve the accountability of their executive regulators by modifying the incentive structure.

In this note, we consider how to allocate property rights to scarce resources when agents have budget constraints. Each individual’s wealth level is often observable to the state, although the individual subjective valuation for the resource is hardly known to the state. Under this situation, we mainly compare the efficiency of allocations under two assignment mechanisms; (i) the random assignment with resale and (ii) priority assignment to the poorest with resale. We show that the latter is more efficient than the former. If the mass of goods to be allocated is large enough, the latter can achieve social optimum.

This study examines, from a comparative law perspective, how jurisdictions across East, Southeast and South Asia deal with the issue of the patentability of second/subsequent medical uses. The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of subsequent medical uses of known medical compositions, as a number of medicines that are being used to treat Covid-19 were originally developed for other illnesses. The decision whether second/subsequent medical uses of pharmaceuticals are patentable in any given jurisdiction is, however, a policy decision to the extent that it is one of the main exclusions available to countries as a ‘flexibility’ under the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement). The results of this study show that there is a wide variation in Asia regarding the patentability of second/subsequent uses, and examines the possible reasons for this variation. The paper concludes with recommendations for countries in the region.

The performance of appeal systems has been frequently been conditioned by the availability of human and financial resources. Scholars have suggested measures for reducing the financial and administrative burden of appeal tribunals; however, such proposals must be assessed considering their impact on the primigenial objectives pursued by these systems, particularly their capacity to reduce the harm produced by judicial errors. This study assesses diverse options for reducing caseload burdens in an administrative appeal system, including abandoning the prohibition of the Reformatio in Peius (RIP) principle, elevating fees for appealing and introducing subsidies and penalties to defendants. The results show that increasing appeal fees may allow a similar effect on the reduction of caseload burden as abandoning no RIP but at a lower cost in terms of noncorrected errors. The results are robust to different assumptions regarding the informational signals sent by defendants to tribunals during the administrative process.