Band 17, Heft 2 - Special Issue: The Impact of Behavioral Economics on the Law, Guest Editors: Francesco Parisi and Alice Guerra

Adopting the paradigms, findings and tools of behavioral economics has opened a promising avenue for legal research. This article sketches the broader framework within which the papers assembled in this special issue may be placed.

The application of behavioral economics to law and economics has taken a paternalistic turn. Behavioralists believe that the fundamental assumptions regarding individual behavior in standard theory do not reflect reality. If individuals are not “rational” in the standard economic sense, then there will be decisionmaking failures: people cannot be relied upon to make individually optimal decisions and thus to maximize welfare as they see it. This Article is organized as follows. Part One is a prelude and gives context. Part Two discusses the fundamental normative standard in behavioral public policy: true preferences. I then proceed to outline the causes of the divergence between true preferences and actual observed preferences. Part Three analyzes some of the knowledge problems is ascertaining the presence of cognitive and behavioral biases. Part Four presents a case study of the difficulties of behavioral policy analysis in the area of consumer credit. Part Five concludes.

This article explores some behavioral findings that are relevant to three areas of contract: formation, performance, and remedies. I compare the rational choice theory analysis of various aspects of contract law with how behavioral findings lead to a change in our understanding of that area of law. A penultimate section considers several criticisms of behavioral economics. A concluding section calls for altering some settled understandings of contract law to accommodate behavioral results and for further research about some still uncertain aspects of contracting.

Skeptics of rational choice theory have long predicted that behavioral economics would radically transform the legislation, adjudication, and analysis of law. Using tort law as an exemplar, this Article maps out the narrow set of conditions where substantive law can be modified to accommodate irrational decision-makers. Specifically, this Article demonstrates that if injurers are systematically biased, and the due care standard can be expressed quantitatively, and victims are unable to take meaningful precautions, then imposing punitive damages can induce irrational injurers to exercise efficient precautionary care. In all other cases, it is better that the law adopt a presumption of rationality, regardless whether individuals behave rationally in fact.

Legal scholars have long assumed that plea bargains are contracts negotiated between rational actors who adhere to the dictates of the normative shadow-of-trial model. The two key features that rational actors presumably haggle over in the shadow of trial are the criminal charge (and associated sentence) and the probability of trial conviction. The behavioral economics theory of discounting , however, offers a theoretical foundation for testing the shadow-of-trial model. This article summarizes findings from experimental discounting studies in behavioral economics and psychological science – showing that these paradigms can be successfully applied to the plea-bargaining decision context wherein the likelihood of trial is uncertain and delayed, and the plea bargain is relatively certain and immediate. We suggest that the implications of applying discounting to plea bargaining are three-fold: (1) empirical evidence suggests that the shadow-of-trial model is too narrow; (2) the discounting of non-monetary losses may involve slightly different psychological processes than contexts involving monetary outcomes; and (3) probability of conviction and delay until trial constitute situational features that elicit guilty pleas despite a defendant’s factual innocence.

The economic analysis of law assumes that court decisions are key to incentivizing people and maximizing social welfare. This article reviews the behavioral literature on court decision making, and highlights numerous heuristics and biases that impact judges and jurors and cause them to make decisions that diverge from the social optimum. In light of this review, the article analyzes some of the institutional features of the court system that may help minimize the costs of biased decisions in the courts.

Behavioral economics has highlighted the impact of various biases on economic outcomes. This essay reviews how biases have been incorporated into economic models of the law and the resulting implications for the assessment of different legal rules and policies. It focuses on two contexts. The first concerns biases that affect consumer purchases of risky products. Using a standard accident model that incorporates various forms of consumer bias, we discuss how bias can affect the efficient assignment of liability for product-related accidents. The second context concerns biases that affect the administration of law, particularly regarding the adjudication of guilt, the lawmaking function of trials, and criminal sentencing. We examine procedural rules like precedent and sentencing guidelines, both of which are aimed at curtailing judicial bias.

Empirical and experimental evidence shows that individuals exhibit behavioral biases in their decision-making processes that depart from the full rationality paradigm. This paper discusses the effectiveness of alternative debiasing strategies, designed to induce socially preferable outcomes. Following Jolls, C. and Sunstein, C.R. (2006). Debiasing through law. J. Leg. Stud. 35: 199–242, this paper examines legal strategies that aim at “debiasing through law”, attempting to reduce or eliminate boundedly rational behavior. Alternatively, policymakers can implement “insulating” legal strategies that separate the outcome from the biased behavior, without attempting to eradicate behavioral biases from the decision-making process. This paper compares these strategies in many areas, such as tort law, consumer safety law, and property law.

This paper explores the interaction, rather than the competition, among incentivist (or rationalist), behavioral, and evolutionary explanations of legal rules and approaches to problems of public policy. It suggests that behavioral economics can play an important role in influencing people where an incentive-based approach to affecting behavior was tried first and failed on a subset of the targeted group. The discussion ranges across examples including savings rates, the performance of educational institutions, health care, rescue, and even university admissions to explore a range of behavioral tools, with a focus on endowment effects and N-of-1 thinking, in order to bring out the clash among – and the teamwork that is possible with – these three approaches.