ABSTRACT: In this paper prepared for inclusion in the Oxford Handbook of the Russian Economy (Michael Alexeev and Shlomo Weber, eds.), we replicate, update, and extend our earlier work on manufacturing enterprise privatization and productivity in Russia. Our results suggest a more nuanced view of Russian privatization than that offered by either its critics or its defenders. We confirm earlier findings that the average impact on productivity of privatization to domestic owners is around -3 to -5 percent, though some regions show productivity gains similar to those in Central Europe (an increase of 10 to 20 percent). The regional variation is strongly positively associated with the size of the regional bureaucracy. Notwithstanding the average negative effect, our updated results through 2005 (the most recent year for which comparable data are available) show a pronounced change after 2002 as the productivity effects of Russian privatization have begun to approach those seen elsewhere much earlier. Privatization became most effective west of the Urals, in areas with greater market access. Initially an outlier, by 2005 Russia appeared to be becoming more of a “normal country,” at least in the narrow sense of the impact of private ownership on firm productivity.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Do Victims of War Need International Law? Human Rights Education Programs in Sudan
Mark Fathi Massoud (McGill Law) has a new article, Do Victims of War Need International Law? Human Rights Education Programs in Sudan. It examines contemporary programs in law and development in authoritarian and war-torn contexts. The paper is based on nearly 18 months of field research in Sudan, since 2005.
Friday, November 4, 2011
A Research Agenda for Development Economics
Esther Duflo
, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) - Department of Economics has an interesting paper on A Research Agenda for Development Economics.ABSTRACT: Development economics has grown tremendously in the last fifteen years. It can continue to grow and improve in the next decades by focusing on three areas. First, revitalizing the tradition of applied theory which transformed development economics in the 1980s and 1990s, by giving us a better understanding of how poverty shapes individual options. A new wave of applied theoretical work is needed, to incorporate recent empirical findings that have revealed the limits of the earlier theoretical framework. Second, continue expanding and improving empirical work, in particular experimental work. More ambitious, potentially more expensive experiments, should be conducted. Third, expanding theoretical and empirical work on the aggregate consequences of micro-level distortions, themselves identified by the new theoretical and the empirical work to be done under the first and second areas of focus.
Challenges for Social Sciences: Institutions and Economic Development
Daron Acemoglu,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) - Department of Economics has a great overview piece on Challenges for Social Sciences: Institutions and Economic Development.ABSTRACT: Why some countries are much poorer than others is one of the oldest questions in social science. It will also be one of the most challenging and important questions in the next several decades. This is for several reasons. First, despite spectacular growth in per capita incomes in much of the world during the 20th century, the gaps between rich and poor countries, rather than abating, have expanded. This pattern is challenging to most of our theories because many of the barriers to the spread of prosperity have disappeared: ideas travel around the world almost instantaneously, and any nation should today be able to easily copy any economic or social practice that it wishes; various impediments to trade in goods and to financial flows and foreign direct investments have largely disappeared. But the wide gaps in incomes and living standards remain. Second, these gaps have meant that while the rich world has become richer, poverty, disease and social injustice are still widespread in many parts of the world, notably in much of sub-Saharan Africa, in parts of South Asia and in various pockets of poverty in the Caribbean and Central America.
Challenging though these issues may be, we are now much better equipped to understand, and perhaps work towards redressing, the causes of these widespread disparities. Much of the progress on this issue has been made in economics (see Acemoglu, 2009, for an overview), but the next step will require us to combine the insights and tools developed in economics with perspectives from other social sciences.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
“Law and Development at the Microlevel: From Microtrade to Current Issues in Law and Development” (December 10, 2011, Seattle University School of Law
The 2011 Law and Development Institute Conference
“Law and Development at the Microlevel: From Microtrade to Current Issues in Law and Development”
(December 10, 2011, Seattle University School of Law)
The Law and Development Institute (LDI, www.lawanddevelopment.net), established in Sydney, Australia, promotes law and development agendas, conducts relevant academic research, and provides forums for academic exchanges in law and development. Twenty-eight leading scholars and professionals from several countries are currently participating in the LDI. The LDI held the inaugural conference in Sydney on October 16, 2010 (www.ldiconference.net), which was promoted globally and attended by over one hundred scholars, lawyers, students, and government officials from several countries.
The LDI, in conjunction with Seattle University School of Law, holds its second annual conference in law and development on December 10, 2011, at Seattle University School of Law (Student Center, "LeRoux Room"). Eighteen leading speakers from nine countries, including U.S.A., Canada, Japan, Korea, Australia, Singapore, Thailand, United Kingdom, and India, are scheduled to present key issues on international trade, investment and finance, and least-developed countries from the perspective of law and development. On-line registration will be required for conference attendance. The updated conference schedule, speakers’ biographical information, and presentation summaries are available on the Seattle University School of Law website
(www.law.seattleu.edu/Academics/International_Programs/Law_and_Development_Institute_Conference.xml). On-line registration is required for conference attendance (http://www.regonline.com/builder/site/default.aspx?EventID=1021336).
Conference Program
Morning Sessions
8:30 – 9:00 Reception and Registration
9:00 – 9:10 Opening remark by Professor Y.S. Lee, Director of the Law and Development Institute
9:10 – 9:20 Welcome speech by Professor Mark Niles, Dean, Seattle University School of Law
9:20 – 9:30 Keynote speech by Professor Antonio Garcia-Padilla, former President, University of Puerto Rico
Panel Presentation
9:30-11:00 Microtrade I
Chair
Professor David Gantz, University of Arizona School of Law
Speakers
Professor Y.S. Lee, The Law and Development Institute
“Microtrade: An Overview”
Professor Farid Shirazi, Ryerson University, Canada
“Canada: Virtual Bazaar: An E-Commerce Model to help Microtrade in Least Developed Countries”
Dr. Arpita Gupta, Jindal Global Law School, India
“International Microtrade Regime – Structure and Financing”
Professor Andreas Neef, Kyoto University, Japan
“Community-Based Microtrade in Support of Small-Scale Farmers in Thailand and Tanzania”
11:00-11:15 Coffee Break
11:15-12:30 Microtrade II
Chair
Professor Y.S. Lee, The Law and Development Institute
Speakers
Professor Jae Min Lee, Ewha Woman’s University, Korea
“Microtrade as Reflected in DDA”
Professor Colin Picker, University of New South Wales, Australia
“Microtrade and the Legal Cultural Considerations”
Dr. Prapanpong Khumon, University of Thai Chamber of Commerce, Thailand
“Microtrade and the Fair Trade Movement”
12:30 – 1:30 Lunch break
Afternoon Sessions
1:30 – 3:20 Investment and Development Finance
Chair
Professor Caf Dowlah, City University of New York
Speakers
Professor Sophie Smyth, Temple University School of Law
“Multilateral Development Finance”
Professor Christine Hurt, University of Illinois School of Law
“Securitization, Reckless Credit and Systemic Risk: Microfinance Meets Bubble Regulation”
Professor David Gantz, University of Arizona School of Law
“Investor-State Conflicts for Developing Countries”
Professor Perry Bechky, Seattle University School of Law
“Microinvestment Disputes”
Professor Jiangyu Wang, National University of Singapore, Singapore
“Regulating Investment and Financial Liberalization”
3:20 – 3:35 Coffee break
3:35 – 5:50 Least-Developed Countries
Chair
Professor Colin Picker, University of New South Wales School of Law, Australia
Speakers
Professor Maureen Irish, University of Windsor School of Law, Canada
“Climate Change and LDCs”
Professor Alan Tomkins, U.S. State Department and University of Nebraska
“USA: Food Shortage in LDCs”
Dr. Deming Liu, New Castle University School of Law, U.K.
“Bonding Requirement for LDC Investments”
Professor Caf Dowlah, City University of New York
“Labor Sending LDCs”
Ms. Cynthia Howson, University of London SOAS, U.K.
“Women’s Smuggling in Senegal”
Professor Ruth Gordon, Villanova University School of Law, USA
“China’s Rising Influence in Africa”
5:50 - 6:00 Ending Remarks
Monday, August 22, 2011
What is Law and Development?
ABSTRACT: Law & Development studies have been growing in the past few years, after having its death declared in the 1070s. There is, however, very little clarity as to what this field of study encompasses or whether it is a field at all. Under the label of Law & Development one can find a wide variety of studies, approaches, analyses and topics. Some studies focus on formal institutions, discussing how enforcement of contracts, protection of property rights, and an independent judiciary protect investors and improve economic growth in developing countries. Others have not focused on economic development, but instead on how laws to protect women from abuses in the family and to create quotas to guarantee their participation in the public sphere have been largely ineffective due to deeply embedded social norms and value that cannot be changed by legislation (at least not from one day to the next). Still others have criticized the Law & Development discourse as another source of imperialism and dominance that justify senseless legal transplants from the North to the South.
What brings all these studies together under one label? What is it that one should know, if one is looking for a concise summary of what this field of study encompasses? These are the questions that I will try to answer in this essay. The read should be forewarned that the title may be slightly misleading, as the paper will not provide comprehensive and conclusive answers to the question “What is Law & Development?” but hopefully it will offer a starting point for a deeper inquiry. Most importantly, I hope readers will take this as an invitation to explore this field in greater depth.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Interesting new article by Don Clarke
ABSTRACT: Corporate law scholarship has come a long way since Bayless Manning some four decades ago famously pronounced it dead. Not only has doctrinal scholarship continued its project of critique and rationalization, but empirical and economic approaches have injected new life into the field.
Recent years have seen the rise of comparative corporate governance (CCG) as an increasingly mainstream approach within the world of corporate governance studies. This is a function partly of an increasing international orientation on the part of legal scholars and partly of an increasingly empirical turn in corporate law scholarship generally. Different practices in other jurisdictions present at least the possibility of natural experiments that attempt to find causal relationships between particular features of a corporate governance regime and real-world outcomes. This body of research has become particular relevant as we enter the second decade of the twenty-first century. The financial crisis has called into question many of our traditional ways of thinking about corporate governance and the relationship between business enterprises and the state. Are there other countries that do it better?
This article discusses what is unique about CCG as an approach to corporate governance studies. It begins by examining the concepts of corporate governance and comparative corporate governance, making the point that comparative corporate governance has in general been focused on agency problems between shareholders and managers but need not be so. It then looks at methodological issues in comparative corporate governance, critiquing in particular economic Darwinist theories and the failure of theories of international competition in corporate governance to incorporate the notion of comparative advantage. Finally, it reviews major lessons learned from this body of work and suggests direction for future research. Among other things, it calls for more comparative research into alternative business entities dubbed “uncorporations” by Larry Ribstein and into corporate governance in increasingly important economies such as China and India.
