ACLE Conference - Call for Papers
The Amsterdam Center for Law & Economics at the University of Amsterdam organizes its 7th annual Competition & Regulation meeting on the topic:
Competition Policy for Emerging Economies: When and How?
May 20, 2011
University of Amsterdam
Keynote Speakers include:
Frederic Jenny (ESSEC Business School)
Daniel Sokol (University of Florida)
Michal Gal (University of Haifa)
Roundtable discussion chaired by William Kovacic (FTC) between the keynote speakers, joined by Andrew Gavil (Howard University), Ioannis Lianos (UCL) and Hassan Qaqaya (UNCTAD, tbc).
The objective of this C&R Meeting is to bring together renowned specialists in emerging competition law enforcement and its interrelationship to economic development in conference to debate. We also welcome practitioners with a keen interest in this specialty subject, including (new) agency officials, government officials interested in competition policy as a development aid tool, competition lawyers and consultants and scholars working on these research topics.
Call for Papers – NOW OPEN
Academics, private practitioners and competition officials, both with a legal and an economic background, are encouraged to submit their research for inclusion in the conference program. We welcome all original research (in progress).
Submissions for inclusion in the program (full papers or abstracts) may be sent together with the author’s address information to: ACLE@uva.nl
The deadline for submission is March 1 2011. Decisions on acceptance to the program will be communicated mid March.
Call for Papers
The scientific program committee, which consists of Maarten Pieter Schinkel (chair), Rein Wesseling, Benjamin van Rooij, Jeroen van de Ven, Kati Cseres and Jo Seldeslachts, will produce a full day program based on the response to this call. Local organizers are Martijn Han and Michael Frese.
More Information
For more information, please visit the ACLE conference website: http://emergingagencies.acle.nl
Relevant information on the preliminary program, registration, fees and accommodation will be posted on this website as we progress towards the conference date.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Learning From Latvia: Adoption, Adaptation, and Evidence-Based Justice Reform
Abstract
Justice reform through legal technical assistance has emerged since the 1990s as a means to support developing and transition countries to reform governance structures. To date, few studies have examined which aspects of capacity development can best support the adoption, adaptation and local acceptability of international norms within local justice systems. This paper presents the findings of a mixed methods study of 14 Latvian participants involved in a Canadian justice reform project that established the Latvian State Probation Service (SPS). It provides empirical support for the view that development actors must support organizational policies that build the individual capacity required to engage in the reform process.
Published in Journal of Baltic Studies, Volume 41 Issue 4 December 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL AND STANFORD LAW SCHOOL FOURTH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL JUNIOR FACULTY FORUM CALL FOR PAPERS
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL AND STANFORD LAW SCHOOL FOURTH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL JUNIOR FACULTY FORUM
CALL FOR PAPERS
Stanford Law School and Harvard Law School have established an International Junior Faculty Forum. The idea behind this is to stimulate exchange of ideas and research, among younger scholars in the academy, from all parts of the world; and to encourage younger scholars in their work. We live today in a global community - especially a global legal community - and it is important to develop legal scholarship on a transnational basis. Scholars in different countries are often divided by barriers of time and space, as well as barriers of different legal traditions and cultures. We hope that the Forum will be a step in the direction of surmounting these barriers. The papers at the 2010 Forum were on a very wide range of subjects, from the treatment of science by the World Trade Organization, to the concept of evil in German and American law, to the role of Islam in the development of national legal system. The young scholars came from many different countries, as did the senior scholars. In all, five continents and a wide range of viewpoints and methodologies were represented.
The sponsors, Harvard and Stanford law schools, are pleased to announce plans for the fourth International Junior Faculty Forum. The Forum will be held in November 17 - 19, 2011 at the Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA.
In order to be considered for the 2011 International Junior Faculty Forum, authors must meet the following criteria:
• Citizen of a country other than the United States.
• Home academic institution is outside of the U.S.
• Have held a faculty position or its equivalent (including positions comparable to junior faculty positions in research institutes) for less than seven years as of 2011.
• Last degree earned less than ten years earlier than 2011.
Papers may be on any legally relevant subject. We especially welcome work that is interdisciplinary. The papers can make use of any relevant approach; they can be quantitative or qualitative, sociological, anthropological, historical, or economic. The sponsoring schools would like to emphasize that they welcome papers from junior scholars from all parts of the world. No country or group of countries has a monopoly of talent. Please note that already published papers are not eligible to be considered.
The first step is to submit an abstract of the proposed paper. We would like these to be no more than four (4) pages and be in English. Tell us what you plan to do; lay out the major argument of the paper, say something about the methodology, and what you think will be the paper's contribution to scholarship. The due date for the abstracts is January 17, 2011, although earlier submissions are welcomed. Please submit the abstract electronically to both schools-- at Harvard, to Juliet Bowler (jbowler@law.harvard.edu), and at Stanford, to Lisa Woodcock (lwoodcock@law.stanford.edu) with the subject line: International Junior Faculty Forum. The abstract should contain the author's name, home institution, and the title of the proposed paper. Please also send a current CV.
After the abstracts have been reviewed, we will in February invite a number of junior scholars to submit full papers of no more than 15,000 words, electronically (in English) by May 31, 2011. Please include a word count for final papers.
An international committee of legal scholars, who themselves come from across the globe, and represent many different styles and approaches, will review the papers. In the end, about ten of the papers will be chosen for presentation at the conference. And, as before, at the conference itself, two senior scholars, will comment on each paper. After the commentators give their remarks, all of the participants, junior and senior alike, will have a chance to join in the discussion. Meeting junior and senior colleagues, and talking about your work and theirs, may be one of the most valuable - and enjoyable-- aspects of the Forum.
The sponsoring schools will cover expenses of travel, including airfare, lodging, and food, for each participant. Questions should be directed to Juliet Bowler (jbowler@law.harvard.edu) or Lisa Woodcock (lwoodcock@law.stanford.edu).
CALL FOR PAPERS
Stanford Law School and Harvard Law School have established an International Junior Faculty Forum. The idea behind this is to stimulate exchange of ideas and research, among younger scholars in the academy, from all parts of the world; and to encourage younger scholars in their work. We live today in a global community - especially a global legal community - and it is important to develop legal scholarship on a transnational basis. Scholars in different countries are often divided by barriers of time and space, as well as barriers of different legal traditions and cultures. We hope that the Forum will be a step in the direction of surmounting these barriers. The papers at the 2010 Forum were on a very wide range of subjects, from the treatment of science by the World Trade Organization, to the concept of evil in German and American law, to the role of Islam in the development of national legal system. The young scholars came from many different countries, as did the senior scholars. In all, five continents and a wide range of viewpoints and methodologies were represented.
The sponsors, Harvard and Stanford law schools, are pleased to announce plans for the fourth International Junior Faculty Forum. The Forum will be held in November 17 - 19, 2011 at the Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA.
In order to be considered for the 2011 International Junior Faculty Forum, authors must meet the following criteria:
• Citizen of a country other than the United States.
• Home academic institution is outside of the U.S.
• Have held a faculty position or its equivalent (including positions comparable to junior faculty positions in research institutes) for less than seven years as of 2011.
• Last degree earned less than ten years earlier than 2011.
Papers may be on any legally relevant subject. We especially welcome work that is interdisciplinary. The papers can make use of any relevant approach; they can be quantitative or qualitative, sociological, anthropological, historical, or economic. The sponsoring schools would like to emphasize that they welcome papers from junior scholars from all parts of the world. No country or group of countries has a monopoly of talent. Please note that already published papers are not eligible to be considered.
The first step is to submit an abstract of the proposed paper. We would like these to be no more than four (4) pages and be in English. Tell us what you plan to do; lay out the major argument of the paper, say something about the methodology, and what you think will be the paper's contribution to scholarship. The due date for the abstracts is January 17, 2011, although earlier submissions are welcomed. Please submit the abstract electronically to both schools-- at Harvard, to Juliet Bowler (jbowler@law.harvard.edu), and at Stanford, to Lisa Woodcock (lwoodcock@law.stanford.edu) with the subject line: International Junior Faculty Forum. The abstract should contain the author's name, home institution, and the title of the proposed paper. Please also send a current CV.
After the abstracts have been reviewed, we will in February invite a number of junior scholars to submit full papers of no more than 15,000 words, electronically (in English) by May 31, 2011. Please include a word count for final papers.
An international committee of legal scholars, who themselves come from across the globe, and represent many different styles and approaches, will review the papers. In the end, about ten of the papers will be chosen for presentation at the conference. And, as before, at the conference itself, two senior scholars, will comment on each paper. After the commentators give their remarks, all of the participants, junior and senior alike, will have a chance to join in the discussion. Meeting junior and senior colleagues, and talking about your work and theirs, may be one of the most valuable - and enjoyable-- aspects of the Forum.
The sponsoring schools will cover expenses of travel, including airfare, lodging, and food, for each participant. Questions should be directed to Juliet Bowler (jbowler@law.harvard.edu) or Lisa Woodcock (lwoodcock@law.stanford.edu).
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Emerging Economies and the Rule of Law: Challenges and Opportunities
The 17th Commonwealth Law Conference will take place in Hyderabad, India, Feb. 5-9, 2011. Organizers expect over 1,000 lawyers, judges, and legal academics from 54 Commonwealth countries to attend. The theme of the conference is Emerging Economies and the Rule of Law: Challenges and Opportunities and the diverse business programme will cover human rights and the rule of law, corporate and commercial law and the legal and judicial professions.
AEA Annual Meeting 2011
The American Economics Association will be January 6-9, 2011 in Denver, CO. There are a number of panels on issues of law and development (ans development economics more generally). See the program here.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Global Competition Law Conference: Implementing Competition Law and Policy, Global Perspectives
Global Competition Law Conference:
Implementing Competition Law and Policy, Global Perspectives
19 November 2010, New Delhi, India
The recent adoption of competition law statutes in East and South Asia, culminating with the enactment of the Indian Competition Act and the Chinese Antimonopoly Law, mark a significant development to the global business community. Merger control, the application of competition law to unilateral conduct such as distribution agreements, competition issues in intellectual property rights, and state activities in the economy create important challenges in the enforcement of competition law in these crucial markets for policymakers, multinational corporations, law firms and economic consultancies. A number of panels and roundtables will examine these issues, composed by the international and local leaders of the competition/regulatory law and M&A practice.
The public conference will be preceded by an invitation only one-day workshop on the issue of economic development and competition law, a theme that is of particular importance to the global as well as to the local business community.
View the website for the invitation only conference
Major policy makers, academics and practitioners from around the world will analyze these topics and will share their unique expertise in the area of competition law and more specifically in merger control, evidence in competition law, joint ventures, distribution, cartels, and the interaction between competition and intellectual property.
The Centre for Law and Economics (Competition, Regulation and Public Policy section) at UCL acknowledges the support of our Exclusive Indian Legal Partner, Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A Shroff & Co.
Registration Fees:
£130 early bird ticket, available until 5pm on 1 October 2010
£170 standard ticket
£130 UCL alumni / Staff / Students ticket
Group discount of 10% discount on the standard ticket price is available for groups (3 or more delegates from the same organization)
The registration fee includes:
- Conference lunch and all other refreshments during the conference on 19 November
- Delegate pack with the conference materials
- Certificate of Participation from the UCL Faculty of Laws
Payment:
There are three methods of payment for this conference that you can use once you have chosen your ticket:
1. Via credit card - using Google Checkout button at the bottom of the page
2. Via bank transfer - an invoice will be issued with our bank details
3. Via cheque (in GBP) - choose to pay via cheque
To view options 2 and 3, make sure that you click on the 'show' link next to the Other Payment Options section at the bottom of the booking page.
View the conference website
Conference Schedule
08:15 Registration
08:45 Welcome and Introduction
Ioannis Lianos (UCL) & Daniel Sokol (University of Florida)
09:00 Keynote Speakers:
His Excellency Mr. Salman Khurshid (Minister of State for Corporate Affairs of India)
Justice S. H. Kapadia (Chief Justice of India) (tbc)
09:30 Parallel Sessions
PANEL 1: Mergers
Moderator:
Laura Carstensen (UK Competition Commission)
Panelists:
•Simon Baxter (Skadden, Arps)
•Dhanendra Kumar (Chairman CCI)
•Vijaya Sampath (Bharti Airtel)
•Paul Seabright (University of Toulouse, IDEI)
•Pallavi Shroff (Amarchand Mangaldas)
PANEL 2: Evidence in competition law proceedings (burden of proof, standard of proof, presumptions, economic evidence, admissibility and evaluation)
Moderator:
David Lewis (former Chairman, Competition Tribunal of South Africa)
Panelists:
•Jean Yves Art (Associate General Counsel, Microsoft)
•Cristina Caffarra (Vice-President and Head of European Competition Practice, Charles River Associates)
•John Kallaugher (UCL & Latham & Watkins LLP)
•Damien Neven (Chief Economist, DG Competition, European Commission)
•Naval Satarawala Chopra (Amarchand Mangaldas)
11:00 COFFEE BREAK
11:15 Parallel Sessions
PANEL 3: Competition Issues in Joint Ventures and Distribution Issues
Moderator:
Damien Neven (Chief Economist, DG Competition, European Commission)
Panelists:
•Kiran Desai (Mayer Brown International)
•Ashok Gupta (Aditya Birla Group)
•Jeremy Calsyn (Cleary Gottlieb)
•Ioannis Lianos (UCL)
•Stephen Malherbe (Genesis Analytics)
•Suzanne E Wachsstock (Chief Antitrust Counsel, American Express)
PANEL 4:
Cartels
Moderator:
Scott D. Hammond (US Department of Justice Antitrust Division)
Panelists:
•John Beyer (Nathan Associates)
•Marcus Bezzi (Executive General Manager, Enforcement & Compliance Division, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission)
•Ariel Ezrachi (University of Oxford)
•Scott D. Hammond (US Department of Justice Antitrust Division)
•P N Parashar (Member, Competition Commission of India)
•Maarten Pieter Schinkel (University of Amsterdam)
13:00 LUNCH BREAK
13:30 Key note speakers:
•John Fingleton (Chief Executive at the UK Office of Fair Trading / Chair of the Steering Group, International Competition Network)
14:00 Parallel Sessions
PANEL 5: Intersection between Antitrust and Intellectual Property law issues
Moderator:
Howard Shelanski (Deputy Director, Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission)
Panelists:
•Andrea Appella (Deputy General Counsel, European & Asia, News Corporation)
•Harry First (NYU Law School)
•Damien Neven (Chief Economist, DG Competition, European Commission)
•Robbert Snelders (Cleary, Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP)
•Doug Melamed (General Counsel, Intel)
•P N Parashar (Member, Competition Commission of India)
PANEL 6:
Government Barriers to Competition
Moderator:
Pradeep S. Mehta (Secretary General, Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS))
Panelists:
•Allan Fels (Dean, The Australia and New Zealand School of Government and Former Chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission)
•Shubhashis Gangopadhyay, (Director, India Development Forum)
•Martha Licetti (Head of Competition Policy, World Bank)
•Rahul Sarin (Member, Competition Appellate Tribunal)
•Daniel Sokol (University of Florida)
•Bharat Vasani (GC, Tata Sons)
15:30 COFFEE BREAK
16:00 Enforcers' Roundtable:
Limits to the discretion of competition authorities: a comparative perspective
(due process, judicial review, priorities setting, guidelines and reductive versus expansive interpretation of the law, comity principles)
Moderator:
Frederic Jenny (Cour de Cassation (Judge of the French Supreme Court) and Chairman, OECD Competition Committee)
Panelists:
•Marcus Bezzi (Executive General Manager of the Enforcement & Compliance Division, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission)
•Laura Carstensen (Deputy Chairman, UK Competition Commission)
•John Fingleton (Chief Executive at the UK Office of Fair Trading / Chair of the Steering Group, International Competition Network)
•Dhanendra Kumar (Chairman, Competition Commission of India)
•Damien Neven (Chief Economist, DG Competition, European Commission)
•Shan Ranburuth (South African Competition Commission)
•Scott D. Hammond (US Department of Justice Antitrust Division)
18:00 Close of Conference
The public conference on 19 November is preceded by an invitation only workshop on the issue of economic development and competition law, a theme that is of particular importance to the global as well as to the local business community.
Additional speakers at this workshop include:
•William Kovacic - Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
•Masahiko Aoki - Stanford University
•Tom Arthur - Emory Univ. Law School
•Aditya Bhattacharjea - Delhi School of Economics
•Thomas Cheng - University of Hong Kong, Law
•Vivek Ghosal - Georgia Institute of Technology, Economics
•Abel Mateus - New University of Lisbon
•George Priest - Yale Law School
•Patrick Rey - IDEI, Toulouse
•Barak Richman - Duke University
•Paul Seabright - IDEI, Toulouse
•Rahul Singh - National University of India, Bangalore
When
Friday, November 19, 2010 from 8:45 AM - 6:00 PM (GMT+0530)
Add to my calendar
Outlook Calendar
Google Calendar
Yahoo! Calendar
iCal Calendar
Where
The Taj Mahal Hotel
1 Mansingh Road
New Delhi 110 011
India
Hosted By
UCL Law Faculty
The Faculty of Laws at UCL has a world-class reputation for research, and has been rated by the UK government in the highest categories for both research and teaching.
We value research not only in contributing to the quality of our teaching and the supervision we give our students, but also in its contribution to the development of law and its influence on legal practice and public policy.
The Faculty was ranked 2nd in the UK by The Times Good University Guide (subject table: Law) in 2008. UCL is ranked 4th in the World University rankings.
See more UCL Laws events at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/events
Implementing Competition Law and Policy, Global Perspectives
19 November 2010, New Delhi, India
The recent adoption of competition law statutes in East and South Asia, culminating with the enactment of the Indian Competition Act and the Chinese Antimonopoly Law, mark a significant development to the global business community. Merger control, the application of competition law to unilateral conduct such as distribution agreements, competition issues in intellectual property rights, and state activities in the economy create important challenges in the enforcement of competition law in these crucial markets for policymakers, multinational corporations, law firms and economic consultancies. A number of panels and roundtables will examine these issues, composed by the international and local leaders of the competition/regulatory law and M&A practice.
The public conference will be preceded by an invitation only one-day workshop on the issue of economic development and competition law, a theme that is of particular importance to the global as well as to the local business community.
View the website for the invitation only conference
Major policy makers, academics and practitioners from around the world will analyze these topics and will share their unique expertise in the area of competition law and more specifically in merger control, evidence in competition law, joint ventures, distribution, cartels, and the interaction between competition and intellectual property.
The Centre for Law and Economics (Competition, Regulation and Public Policy section) at UCL acknowledges the support of our Exclusive Indian Legal Partner, Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A Shroff & Co.
Registration Fees:
£130 early bird ticket, available until 5pm on 1 October 2010
£170 standard ticket
£130 UCL alumni / Staff / Students ticket
Group discount of 10% discount on the standard ticket price is available for groups (3 or more delegates from the same organization)
The registration fee includes:
- Conference lunch and all other refreshments during the conference on 19 November
- Delegate pack with the conference materials
- Certificate of Participation from the UCL Faculty of Laws
Payment:
There are three methods of payment for this conference that you can use once you have chosen your ticket:
1. Via credit card - using Google Checkout button at the bottom of the page
2. Via bank transfer - an invoice will be issued with our bank details
3. Via cheque (in GBP) - choose to pay via cheque
To view options 2 and 3, make sure that you click on the 'show' link next to the Other Payment Options section at the bottom of the booking page.
View the conference website
Conference Schedule
08:15 Registration
08:45 Welcome and Introduction
Ioannis Lianos (UCL) & Daniel Sokol (University of Florida)
09:00 Keynote Speakers:
His Excellency Mr. Salman Khurshid (Minister of State for Corporate Affairs of India)
Justice S. H. Kapadia (Chief Justice of India) (tbc)
09:30 Parallel Sessions
PANEL 1: Mergers
Moderator:
Laura Carstensen (UK Competition Commission)
Panelists:
•Simon Baxter (Skadden, Arps)
•Dhanendra Kumar (Chairman CCI)
•Vijaya Sampath (Bharti Airtel)
•Paul Seabright (University of Toulouse, IDEI)
•Pallavi Shroff (Amarchand Mangaldas)
PANEL 2: Evidence in competition law proceedings (burden of proof, standard of proof, presumptions, economic evidence, admissibility and evaluation)
Moderator:
David Lewis (former Chairman, Competition Tribunal of South Africa)
Panelists:
•Jean Yves Art (Associate General Counsel, Microsoft)
•Cristina Caffarra (Vice-President and Head of European Competition Practice, Charles River Associates)
•John Kallaugher (UCL & Latham & Watkins LLP)
•Damien Neven (Chief Economist, DG Competition, European Commission)
•Naval Satarawala Chopra (Amarchand Mangaldas)
11:00 COFFEE BREAK
11:15 Parallel Sessions
PANEL 3: Competition Issues in Joint Ventures and Distribution Issues
Moderator:
Damien Neven (Chief Economist, DG Competition, European Commission)
Panelists:
•Kiran Desai (Mayer Brown International)
•Ashok Gupta (Aditya Birla Group)
•Jeremy Calsyn (Cleary Gottlieb)
•Ioannis Lianos (UCL)
•Stephen Malherbe (Genesis Analytics)
•Suzanne E Wachsstock (Chief Antitrust Counsel, American Express)
PANEL 4:
Cartels
Moderator:
Scott D. Hammond (US Department of Justice Antitrust Division)
Panelists:
•John Beyer (Nathan Associates)
•Marcus Bezzi (Executive General Manager, Enforcement & Compliance Division, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission)
•Ariel Ezrachi (University of Oxford)
•Scott D. Hammond (US Department of Justice Antitrust Division)
•P N Parashar (Member, Competition Commission of India)
•Maarten Pieter Schinkel (University of Amsterdam)
13:00 LUNCH BREAK
13:30 Key note speakers:
•John Fingleton (Chief Executive at the UK Office of Fair Trading / Chair of the Steering Group, International Competition Network)
14:00 Parallel Sessions
PANEL 5: Intersection between Antitrust and Intellectual Property law issues
Moderator:
Howard Shelanski (Deputy Director, Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission)
Panelists:
•Andrea Appella (Deputy General Counsel, European & Asia, News Corporation)
•Harry First (NYU Law School)
•Damien Neven (Chief Economist, DG Competition, European Commission)
•Robbert Snelders (Cleary, Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP)
•Doug Melamed (General Counsel, Intel)
•P N Parashar (Member, Competition Commission of India)
PANEL 6:
Government Barriers to Competition
Moderator:
Pradeep S. Mehta (Secretary General, Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS))
Panelists:
•Allan Fels (Dean, The Australia and New Zealand School of Government and Former Chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission)
•Shubhashis Gangopadhyay, (Director, India Development Forum)
•Martha Licetti (Head of Competition Policy, World Bank)
•Rahul Sarin (Member, Competition Appellate Tribunal)
•Daniel Sokol (University of Florida)
•Bharat Vasani (GC, Tata Sons)
15:30 COFFEE BREAK
16:00 Enforcers' Roundtable:
Limits to the discretion of competition authorities: a comparative perspective
(due process, judicial review, priorities setting, guidelines and reductive versus expansive interpretation of the law, comity principles)
Moderator:
Frederic Jenny (Cour de Cassation (Judge of the French Supreme Court) and Chairman, OECD Competition Committee)
Panelists:
•Marcus Bezzi (Executive General Manager of the Enforcement & Compliance Division, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission)
•Laura Carstensen (Deputy Chairman, UK Competition Commission)
•John Fingleton (Chief Executive at the UK Office of Fair Trading / Chair of the Steering Group, International Competition Network)
•Dhanendra Kumar (Chairman, Competition Commission of India)
•Damien Neven (Chief Economist, DG Competition, European Commission)
•Shan Ranburuth (South African Competition Commission)
•Scott D. Hammond (US Department of Justice Antitrust Division)
18:00 Close of Conference
The public conference on 19 November is preceded by an invitation only workshop on the issue of economic development and competition law, a theme that is of particular importance to the global as well as to the local business community.
Additional speakers at this workshop include:
•William Kovacic - Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
•Masahiko Aoki - Stanford University
•Tom Arthur - Emory Univ. Law School
•Aditya Bhattacharjea - Delhi School of Economics
•Thomas Cheng - University of Hong Kong, Law
•Vivek Ghosal - Georgia Institute of Technology, Economics
•Abel Mateus - New University of Lisbon
•George Priest - Yale Law School
•Patrick Rey - IDEI, Toulouse
•Barak Richman - Duke University
•Paul Seabright - IDEI, Toulouse
•Rahul Singh - National University of India, Bangalore
When
Friday, November 19, 2010 from 8:45 AM - 6:00 PM (GMT+0530)
Add to my calendar
Outlook Calendar
Google Calendar
Yahoo! Calendar
iCal Calendar
Where
The Taj Mahal Hotel
1 Mansingh Road
New Delhi 110 011
India
Hosted By
UCL Law Faculty
The Faculty of Laws at UCL has a world-class reputation for research, and has been rated by the UK government in the highest categories for both research and teaching.
We value research not only in contributing to the quality of our teaching and the supervision we give our students, but also in its contribution to the development of law and its influence on legal practice and public policy.
The Faculty was ranked 2nd in the UK by The Times Good University Guide (subject table: Law) in 2008. UCL is ranked 4th in the World University rankings.
See more UCL Laws events at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/events
Friday, September 24, 2010
How and Why Does History Matter for Development Policy?
Michael Woolcock, World Bank - Development Research Group, Harvard University - Kennedy School of Government, Simon Szreter, World Bank and Vijayendra Rao, World Bank have an interesting new paper that ask How and Why Does History Matter for Development Policy?
ABSTRACT: The consensus among scholars and policymakers that"institutions matter"for development has led inexorably to a conclusion that"history matters,"since institutions clearly form and evolve over time. Unfortunately, however, the next logical step has not yet been taken, which is to recognize that historians (and not only economic historians) might also have useful and distinctive insights to offer. This paper endeavors to open and sustain a constructive dialogue between history -- understood as both"the past"and"the discipline"-- and development policy by (a) clarifying what the craft of historical scholarship entails, especially as it pertains to understanding causal mechanisms, contexts, and complex processes of institutional change; (b) providing examples of historical research that support, qualify, or challenge the most influential research (by economists and economic historians) in contemporary development policy; and (c) offering some general principles and specific implications that historians, on the basis of the distinctive content and method of their research, bring to development policy debates.
ABSTRACT: The consensus among scholars and policymakers that"institutions matter"for development has led inexorably to a conclusion that"history matters,"since institutions clearly form and evolve over time. Unfortunately, however, the next logical step has not yet been taken, which is to recognize that historians (and not only economic historians) might also have useful and distinctive insights to offer. This paper endeavors to open and sustain a constructive dialogue between history -- understood as both"the past"and"the discipline"-- and development policy by (a) clarifying what the craft of historical scholarship entails, especially as it pertains to understanding causal mechanisms, contexts, and complex processes of institutional change; (b) providing examples of historical research that support, qualify, or challenge the most influential research (by economists and economic historians) in contemporary development policy; and (c) offering some general principles and specific implications that historians, on the basis of the distinctive content and method of their research, bring to development policy debates.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Legal Institutions and Economic Development
Thorsten Beck (Tilburg - Economics) has a new paper worth reading on Legal Institutions and Economic Development.
ABSTRACT: Legal institutions are critical for the development of market-based economies. This paper defines legal institutions and discusses different indicators to measure their quality and efficiency. It surveys a large historical and empirical literature showing the importance of legal institutions in explaining cross-country variation in economic development. Finally, it presents and discusses three different views of why we can observe the large cross-country variation in legal institutions, the social conflict, the legal origin and the culture and religion hypotheses.
ABSTRACT: Legal institutions are critical for the development of market-based economies. This paper defines legal institutions and discusses different indicators to measure their quality and efficiency. It surveys a large historical and empirical literature showing the importance of legal institutions in explaining cross-country variation in economic development. Finally, it presents and discusses three different views of why we can observe the large cross-country variation in legal institutions, the social conflict, the legal origin and the culture and religion hypotheses.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Law and Pluralism in Asia: Exploring Dynamics of Reflection, Reinforcement, and Resistance
North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation presents
Law and Pluralism in Asia: Exploring Dynamics of Reflection, Reinforcement, and Resistance
Friday, January 14, 2011
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Kenan-Flagler Business School, Kenan Center
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Register for the 2011 Symposium
In recent years, Asian societies have experienced a growth in heterogeneity. Due to economic developments, there has been increased intraregional migration that redefines local demographics. For example, economic forces have driven migrant workers from Southeast Asia to resettle in parts of East Asia. Workers have also been migrating to Asia from other parts of the world. State policies have promoted this migration. For example, jurisdictions such as Singapore and Hong Kong have sought to attract educated "creative class" workers from all around the world. Finally, there has also been increasing diversity due to empowerment of local minority groups. The growing political legibility of gays and lesbians in Asia is but one example of this development. States in Asia have been instituting legal reforms to address these changing dynamics. This symposium explores these sociolegal changes, examining how, in different ways, the law reflects, reinforces, and resists pluralism in Asia.
The keynote address will be given by Madhavi Sunder, 2006 Carnegie Scholar and professor of law at the University of California-Davis School of Law.
Confirmed symposium panelists include:
Kelley Loper, University of Hong Kong
Puja Kapai, University of Hong Kong
Wen-chen Chang, National Taiwan University
David Law, Washington University in St. Louis
Illhyung Lee, University of Missouri
Apichai Shipper, University of Southern California
Timothy Webster, Yale University
Anil Kalhan, Drexel University
Carl Minzner, Washington University in St. Louis
Jeffrey Redding, St. Louis University School of Law
Meredith Weiss, University of Albany
Hyunah Yang, Seoul National University
Law and Pluralism in Asia: Exploring Dynamics of Reflection, Reinforcement, and Resistance
Friday, January 14, 2011
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Kenan-Flagler Business School, Kenan Center
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Register for the 2011 Symposium
In recent years, Asian societies have experienced a growth in heterogeneity. Due to economic developments, there has been increased intraregional migration that redefines local demographics. For example, economic forces have driven migrant workers from Southeast Asia to resettle in parts of East Asia. Workers have also been migrating to Asia from other parts of the world. State policies have promoted this migration. For example, jurisdictions such as Singapore and Hong Kong have sought to attract educated "creative class" workers from all around the world. Finally, there has also been increasing diversity due to empowerment of local minority groups. The growing political legibility of gays and lesbians in Asia is but one example of this development. States in Asia have been instituting legal reforms to address these changing dynamics. This symposium explores these sociolegal changes, examining how, in different ways, the law reflects, reinforces, and resists pluralism in Asia.
The keynote address will be given by Madhavi Sunder, 2006 Carnegie Scholar and professor of law at the University of California-Davis School of Law.
Confirmed symposium panelists include:
Kelley Loper, University of Hong Kong
Puja Kapai, University of Hong Kong
Wen-chen Chang, National Taiwan University
David Law, Washington University in St. Louis
Illhyung Lee, University of Missouri
Apichai Shipper, University of Southern California
Timothy Webster, Yale University
Anil Kalhan, Drexel University
Carl Minzner, Washington University in St. Louis
Jeffrey Redding, St. Louis University School of Law
Meredith Weiss, University of Albany
Hyunah Yang, Seoul National University
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
The (Indispensable) Middle Class in Developing Countries; or, the Rich and the Rest, Not the Poor and the Rest
Nancy Birdsall at the Center for Global Development has an interesting new paper The (Indispensable) Middle Class in Developing Countries; or, the Rich and the Rest, Not the Poor and the Rest.
ABSTRACT: Inclusive growth is widely embraced as the central economic goal for developing countries, but the concept is not well defined in the development economics literature. Since the early 1990s, the focus has been primarily on pro-poor growth, with the “poor” being people living on less than $1 day, or in some regions $2 day. The idea of pro-poor growth emerged in the early 1990s as a counterpoint to a concern with growth alone (measured in per-capita income) and is generally defined as growth which benefits the poor as much or more than the rest of the population. Examples include conditional cash transfers, which target the poor while minimizing the fiscal burden on the public sector, and donors’ emphasizing primary over higher education as an assured way to benefit the poor while investing in long-term growth through increases in human capital. Yet these pro-poor, inclusive policies are not necessarily without tradeoffs in fostering long-run growth. In this paper I argue that the concept of inclusive growth should go beyond the traditional emphasis on the poor (and the rest) and take into account changes in the size and economic command of the group conventionally defined as neither poor nor rich, i.e., the middle class.
ABSTRACT: Inclusive growth is widely embraced as the central economic goal for developing countries, but the concept is not well defined in the development economics literature. Since the early 1990s, the focus has been primarily on pro-poor growth, with the “poor” being people living on less than $1 day, or in some regions $2 day. The idea of pro-poor growth emerged in the early 1990s as a counterpoint to a concern with growth alone (measured in per-capita income) and is generally defined as growth which benefits the poor as much or more than the rest of the population. Examples include conditional cash transfers, which target the poor while minimizing the fiscal burden on the public sector, and donors’ emphasizing primary over higher education as an assured way to benefit the poor while investing in long-term growth through increases in human capital. Yet these pro-poor, inclusive policies are not necessarily without tradeoffs in fostering long-run growth. In this paper I argue that the concept of inclusive growth should go beyond the traditional emphasis on the poor (and the rest) and take into account changes in the size and economic command of the group conventionally defined as neither poor nor rich, i.e., the middle class.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
1st African Conference on Int’l Commercial Law - Douala, Cameroon
The University of Basel in Switzerland and the University of Buea in Cameroon, with the support of UNCITRAL (United Nation Commission on International Trade Law) and OHADA (Organisation for the Harmonised Business Law in Africa) are organising an international conference entitled “The 1st African Conference on International Commercial Law.” The Conference will be held in Douala, Cameroon, Jan. 13-14, 2011. The Conference will focus on topics related to international sales law, international arbitration and unification of general contract law.
During this conference early career researchers also have the opportunity to present recent research papers relating to the topics of the conference. Early career researchers interested in submitting abstracts are invited to do so before Oct. 1, 2010. The abstract should be submitted as a word or pdf document with 12-point font, 1.5 line spacing and should not exceed 1500 words. The abstract should be sent via email to Jeanalain.Penda [at] unibas.ch. A jury of established academics will select the successful eight abstracts. The researchers of the selected abstracts will be given 10 minutes to present their papers during the “Early Career Researchers Panel.” The travel and accommodation expenses of the selected candidates will be covered.
Who is an Early Career Researcher?
Early Career Researchers are people who are within two years of the start of their research careers when submitting their abstract. They should be currently undertaking a dissertation, Ph.D. thesis or the like, or have received a doctoral degree not earlier than 2008.
For additional information please contact:
Jean Alain Penda at Jeanalain.Penda [at] unibas.ch or
Stephanie Wassem at Stephanie.Wassem [at] unibas.ch
During this conference early career researchers also have the opportunity to present recent research papers relating to the topics of the conference. Early career researchers interested in submitting abstracts are invited to do so before Oct. 1, 2010. The abstract should be submitted as a word or pdf document with 12-point font, 1.5 line spacing and should not exceed 1500 words. The abstract should be sent via email to Jeanalain.Penda [at] unibas.ch. A jury of established academics will select the successful eight abstracts. The researchers of the selected abstracts will be given 10 minutes to present their papers during the “Early Career Researchers Panel.” The travel and accommodation expenses of the selected candidates will be covered.
Who is an Early Career Researcher?
Early Career Researchers are people who are within two years of the start of their research careers when submitting their abstract. They should be currently undertaking a dissertation, Ph.D. thesis or the like, or have received a doctoral degree not earlier than 2008.
For additional information please contact:
Jean Alain Penda at Jeanalain.Penda [at] unibas.ch or
Stephanie Wassem at Stephanie.Wassem [at] unibas.ch
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Law and Development Institute Inaugural Conference
The Law and Development Institute (LDI) is an international academic network established as a non-profit research institution in Sydney, Australia, with an objective of promoting law and development studies and projects. Law and development concerns the impacts of law on economic and social development, and the LDI aims to become an international centre for law and development studies.
Law and development studies concern the impact of international and domestic legal orders on economic development, which has become increasingly relevant to our economic lives due to the rapid globalization that has taken place in the recent decades. Law and development issues have become a subject of considerable attention in the recent Doha Round negotiations of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in relation to international trade law. The Doha Round was suspended because of the large gaps between the developed and developing countries in their positions on key international trade law and development issues. There are also many unresolved issues about the role of domestic laws and regulations as well as international law in economic development.
The LDI addresses those issues and seeks to help find solutions to poverty issues around the world by clarifying the impact that law has on economic development. Currently a number of preeminent scholars and professionals from several countries, includng the United States, Canada, China (including Hong Kong), Japan, Australia, Korea, Israel, and Singapore, are participating in the LDI.
LDI will be hosting its innagural conference, which will focus on trade issues.
Morning Session: Panel presentation I
Chair
Speakers
Professor Gary Horlick, former Head of U.S. Department of Commerce Import Administration
Professor Jai Sheen Mah, Ewha Womans University
"Law and Development in Korea: A Success Story"
Professor Jiangyu Wang, National University of Singapore
"Law and Development in China: Present and Future"
Dr. Salim Farrar, University of Sydney
"Law and Development in the Islam World: New Possibilities"
Dr. Malcolm Cook, Lowe Institute for International Policy
"Strategic Dimensions of National Development: Case of East Asia"
Afternoon Session: Panel presentation II
Chair
Speakers
Dr. Salim Farrar, University of Sydney
Professor Gary Horlick, former Head of U.S. Department of Commerce Import Administration
"The Future of the World Trade Organization: From Development Perspectives"
Professor Y.S. Lee, The Law and Development Institute
"Theoretical Basis and Regulatory Framework for Microtrade: Combining Volunteerism with
International Trade towards Poverty Elimination"
Professor Won-Mog Choi, Ewha Womans University
"WTO Rules and Agricultural Development Cooperation between Developed and Developing
Countries"
Professor Colin Picker, University of New South Wales
"International Trade and Development Law: A Legal Cultural Critique"
Afternoon Session: Panel presentation III
Chair
Speakers
Professor Y.S. Lee, The Law and Development Institute
Professor Mitsuo Matsushita, University of Tokyo and former WTO Appellate Body member
"Positions of Developing Countries in Free Trade Agreements"
Professor Maureen Irish, University of Windsor
"Special and Differential Treatment, Trade and Sustainable Development"
Professor Andrew Mitchell, University of Melbourne
"The Development Aspect of Trade & Health"
Dr. Tomer Broude, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
"Settling International Development Disputes through Conciliation"
Law and development studies concern the impact of international and domestic legal orders on economic development, which has become increasingly relevant to our economic lives due to the rapid globalization that has taken place in the recent decades. Law and development issues have become a subject of considerable attention in the recent Doha Round negotiations of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in relation to international trade law. The Doha Round was suspended because of the large gaps between the developed and developing countries in their positions on key international trade law and development issues. There are also many unresolved issues about the role of domestic laws and regulations as well as international law in economic development.
The LDI addresses those issues and seeks to help find solutions to poverty issues around the world by clarifying the impact that law has on economic development. Currently a number of preeminent scholars and professionals from several countries, includng the United States, Canada, China (including Hong Kong), Japan, Australia, Korea, Israel, and Singapore, are participating in the LDI.
LDI will be hosting its innagural conference, which will focus on trade issues.
Morning Session: Panel presentation I
Chair
Speakers
Professor Gary Horlick, former Head of U.S. Department of Commerce Import Administration
Professor Jai Sheen Mah, Ewha Womans University
"Law and Development in Korea: A Success Story"
Professor Jiangyu Wang, National University of Singapore
"Law and Development in China: Present and Future"
Dr. Salim Farrar, University of Sydney
"Law and Development in the Islam World: New Possibilities"
Dr. Malcolm Cook, Lowe Institute for International Policy
"Strategic Dimensions of National Development: Case of East Asia"
Afternoon Session: Panel presentation II
Chair
Speakers
Dr. Salim Farrar, University of Sydney
Professor Gary Horlick, former Head of U.S. Department of Commerce Import Administration
"The Future of the World Trade Organization: From Development Perspectives"
Professor Y.S. Lee, The Law and Development Institute
"Theoretical Basis and Regulatory Framework for Microtrade: Combining Volunteerism with
International Trade towards Poverty Elimination"
Professor Won-Mog Choi, Ewha Womans University
"WTO Rules and Agricultural Development Cooperation between Developed and Developing
Countries"
Professor Colin Picker, University of New South Wales
"International Trade and Development Law: A Legal Cultural Critique"
Afternoon Session: Panel presentation III
Chair
Speakers
Professor Y.S. Lee, The Law and Development Institute
Professor Mitsuo Matsushita, University of Tokyo and former WTO Appellate Body member
"Positions of Developing Countries in Free Trade Agreements"
Professor Maureen Irish, University of Windsor
"Special and Differential Treatment, Trade and Sustainable Development"
Professor Andrew Mitchell, University of Melbourne
"The Development Aspect of Trade & Health"
Dr. Tomer Broude, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
"Settling International Development Disputes through Conciliation"
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Brain Drain Taxation as Development Policy
My colleague Yariv Brauner has a forthcoming article titled Brain Drain Taxation as Development Policy.
ABSTRACT: This article examines the potential use of taxation to generate development funds in connection with the immigration of skilled immigrants from developing into developed countries, known as the "brain drain," if designed according to the principles of the new development agenda. It explains that a tax on the brain drain that has been discussed for several decades, yet considered impossible to administer, may be administratively and legally implementable within the framework of the current international tax regime. It argues that designing such a tax according to the principles of the new development agenda, tying together the collection and use of the revenue functions, is essential for the tax to be justifiable and effective. The article proceeds to set the parameters for its design.
ABSTRACT: This article examines the potential use of taxation to generate development funds in connection with the immigration of skilled immigrants from developing into developed countries, known as the "brain drain," if designed according to the principles of the new development agenda. It explains that a tax on the brain drain that has been discussed for several decades, yet considered impossible to administer, may be administratively and legally implementable within the framework of the current international tax regime. It argues that designing such a tax according to the principles of the new development agenda, tying together the collection and use of the revenue functions, is essential for the tax to be justifiable and effective. The article proceeds to set the parameters for its design.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
African Land Grabbing: Whose Interests Are Served?
A new piece by Brookings Director of the Africa Growth Initiative Ernest Aryeetey discusses transnational land acquisitions in Africa.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
The Relation Between Firm-Level Corporate Governance and Market Value: A Study of India
There is some interesting new data in this article.
Bala N. Balasubramanian
Indian Institute of Management Bangalore
Bernard S. Black
Northwestern University - School of Law; Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management; University of Texas at Austin - School of Law; McCombs School of Business, University of Texas at Austin; European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Vikramaditya S. Khanna
University of Michigan Law School
The Relation Between Firm-Level Corporate Governance and Market Value: A Study of India
ABSTRACT: Relatively little is known about the corporate governance practice of firms in emerging markets. We provide a detailed overview of the practices of publicly traded firms in India, and identify areas where governance practices are relatively strong or weak, relative to developed countries. We also examine whether there is a cross-sectional relationship between measures of governance and measures of firm performance and find evidence of a positive relationship for an overall governance index and for an index covering shareholder rights. The association is stronger for more profitable firms and firms with stronger growth opportunities.
Bala N. Balasubramanian
Indian Institute of Management Bangalore
Bernard S. Black
Northwestern University - School of Law; Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management; University of Texas at Austin - School of Law; McCombs School of Business, University of Texas at Austin; European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Vikramaditya S. Khanna
University of Michigan Law School
The Relation Between Firm-Level Corporate Governance and Market Value: A Study of India
ABSTRACT: Relatively little is known about the corporate governance practice of firms in emerging markets. We provide a detailed overview of the practices of publicly traded firms in India, and identify areas where governance practices are relatively strong or weak, relative to developed countries. We also examine whether there is a cross-sectional relationship between measures of governance and measures of firm performance and find evidence of a positive relationship for an overall governance index and for an index covering shareholder rights. The association is stronger for more profitable firms and firms with stronger growth opportunities.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Corporate Governance at the World Bank and the Dilemma of Global Governance
There is a very interesting forthcoming piece in the World Bank Economic Review titled Corporate Governance at the World Bank and the Dilemma of Global Governance by Ashwin Kaja and Eric Werker.
ABSTRACT: Most major decisions at the World Bank are made by its Board of Executive Directors. While some countries enjoy the opportunity to serve on this powerful body, most countries rarely, if ever, get that chance. This gives rise to the question: Does board membership lead to higher funding from the World Bank's two main development financing institutions, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA). Empirical analysis shows that developing countries serving on the board can expect more than double the funding from the IBRD as countries not on the board. In absolute terms, countries on the board receive an average $60 million "bonus" in IBRD loans, an amount that rises in years when IBRD loans are in high demand, particularly for countries in the most influential seats. This effect is more likely driven by informal rules and norms in the boardroom than by the power of the vote itself. No significant effect is found in IDA funding. These results point to challenges of global governance through representative institutions.
ABSTRACT: Most major decisions at the World Bank are made by its Board of Executive Directors. While some countries enjoy the opportunity to serve on this powerful body, most countries rarely, if ever, get that chance. This gives rise to the question: Does board membership lead to higher funding from the World Bank's two main development financing institutions, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA). Empirical analysis shows that developing countries serving on the board can expect more than double the funding from the IBRD as countries not on the board. In absolute terms, countries on the board receive an average $60 million "bonus" in IBRD loans, an amount that rises in years when IBRD loans are in high demand, particularly for countries in the most influential seats. This effect is more likely driven by informal rules and norms in the boardroom than by the power of the vote itself. No significant effect is found in IDA funding. These results point to challenges of global governance through representative institutions.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Democratization and Economic Globalization
A new article caught my attention. Helen V. Milner, Princeton University and Bumba Mukherjee, Pennsylvania State University have work that came out in the Annual Review of Political Science, (Vol. 12, pp. 163-181, 2009) titled Democratization and Economic Globalization.
ABSTRACT: We address two questions that are central to the literature on the emergence of democracy and economic globalization. First, does democratization foster higher levels of trade and capital account openness? Second, do trade and capital account openness increase the likelihood of democratization? We review the literature in international political economy and comparative politics that has theoretically and empirically addressed these questions. We then conduct some empirical tests in a sample of developing countries to briefly evaluate the empirical relationship between democracy and economic globalization. Our analysis reveals that evidence for the claim that democracy fosters trade and capital account liberalization is robust but that empirical support for the predicted positive effect of economic openness on democracy among developing countries is weak. More theoretical work is needed to clarify the link between democracy and economic liberalization, and to this end we provide possible topics for future research.
ABSTRACT: We address two questions that are central to the literature on the emergence of democracy and economic globalization. First, does democratization foster higher levels of trade and capital account openness? Second, do trade and capital account openness increase the likelihood of democratization? We review the literature in international political economy and comparative politics that has theoretically and empirically addressed these questions. We then conduct some empirical tests in a sample of developing countries to briefly evaluate the empirical relationship between democracy and economic globalization. Our analysis reveals that evidence for the claim that democracy fosters trade and capital account liberalization is robust but that empirical support for the predicted positive effect of economic openness on democracy among developing countries is weak. More theoretical work is needed to clarify the link between democracy and economic liberalization, and to this end we provide possible topics for future research.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Attention Lower and Middle Income Country Academics
Christine Parker (University of Melbounre - Law) has asked for some help. She writes:
Vibeke Nielsen and myself together chair the “collaborative research network on regulatory governance” for the US Law and Society Meeting. We have the opportunity to obtain some funding to help bring scholars from low and middle income countries to the next two meetings of the Law and Society Association in San Francisco (2011) and Hawai’i (2012). However we need to have the names of scholars now.
If you are in this category, would you please email me urgently (by Monday June 7) with your name and a very rough idea of the topics on which you might present at the Law and Society meeting. (You will not be held to it – but we do need to provide a specific indication at this stage.
I have included a list of relevant countries below my signature line.
All the best,
Christine Parker
Dr Christine Parker
Associate Professor and Reader
ARC Australian Research Fellow
Melbourne Law School
University of Melbourne
Victoria 3010 AUSTRALIA
(+61) (0)3 8344 1093
My web profile:
http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/staff/Christine%20Parker
Below is a list of low income, lower middle income and upper middle income countries.
LOWER
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Benin
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Central African Republic
Chad
Comoros
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gambia, The
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Haiti
Kenya
Korea, Dem. Rep.
Kyrgyz Republic
Lao PDR
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mozambique
Myanmar
Nepal
Niger
Rwanda
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Togo
Uganda
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen, Rep.
Zambia
Zimbabwe
****
LOWER MIDDLE
Albania
Angola
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belize
Bhutan
Bolivia
Cameroon
Cape Verde
China
Congo, Rep.
Côte d'Ivoire
Djibouti
Ecuador
Egypt, Arab Rep.
El Salvador
Georgia
Guatemala
Guyana
Honduras
India
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Iraq
Jordan
Kiribati
Kosovo
Lesotho
Maldives
Marshall Islands
Micronesia, Fed. Sts.
Moldova
Mongolia
Morocco
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Pakistan
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Philippines
Samoa
São Tomé and Principe
Solomon Islands
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Swaziland
Syrian Arab Republic
Thailand
Timor-Leste
Tonga
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Vanuatu
West Bank and Gaza
*****
UPPER MIDDLE
Algeria
American Samoa
Argentina
Belarus
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Fiji
Gabon
Grenada
Jamaica
Kazakhstan
Latvia
Lebanon
Libya
Lithuania
Macedonia, FYR
Malaysia
Mauritius
Mayotte
Mexico
Montenegro
Namibia
Palau
Panama
Peru
Poland
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Seychelles
South Africa
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Suriname
Turkey
Uruguay
Venezuela, RB
Vibeke Nielsen and myself together chair the “collaborative research network on regulatory governance” for the US Law and Society Meeting. We have the opportunity to obtain some funding to help bring scholars from low and middle income countries to the next two meetings of the Law and Society Association in San Francisco (2011) and Hawai’i (2012). However we need to have the names of scholars now.
If you are in this category, would you please email me urgently (by Monday June 7) with your name and a very rough idea of the topics on which you might present at the Law and Society meeting. (You will not be held to it – but we do need to provide a specific indication at this stage.
I have included a list of relevant countries below my signature line.
All the best,
Christine Parker
Dr Christine Parker
Associate Professor and Reader
ARC Australian Research Fellow
Melbourne Law School
University of Melbourne
Victoria 3010 AUSTRALIA
(+61) (0)3 8344 1093
My web profile:
http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/staff/Christine%20Parker
Below is a list of low income, lower middle income and upper middle income countries.
LOWER
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Benin
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Central African Republic
Chad
Comoros
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gambia, The
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Haiti
Kenya
Korea, Dem. Rep.
Kyrgyz Republic
Lao PDR
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mozambique
Myanmar
Nepal
Niger
Rwanda
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Togo
Uganda
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen, Rep.
Zambia
Zimbabwe
****
LOWER MIDDLE
Albania
Angola
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belize
Bhutan
Bolivia
Cameroon
Cape Verde
China
Congo, Rep.
Côte d'Ivoire
Djibouti
Ecuador
Egypt, Arab Rep.
El Salvador
Georgia
Guatemala
Guyana
Honduras
India
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Iraq
Jordan
Kiribati
Kosovo
Lesotho
Maldives
Marshall Islands
Micronesia, Fed. Sts.
Moldova
Mongolia
Morocco
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Pakistan
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Philippines
Samoa
São Tomé and Principe
Solomon Islands
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Swaziland
Syrian Arab Republic
Thailand
Timor-Leste
Tonga
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Vanuatu
West Bank and Gaza
*****
UPPER MIDDLE
Algeria
American Samoa
Argentina
Belarus
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Fiji
Gabon
Grenada
Jamaica
Kazakhstan
Latvia
Lebanon
Libya
Lithuania
Macedonia, FYR
Malaysia
Mauritius
Mayotte
Mexico
Montenegro
Namibia
Palau
Panama
Peru
Poland
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Seychelles
South Africa
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Suriname
Turkey
Uruguay
Venezuela, RB
Monday, May 24, 2010
Call for Papers
A conference on 'Law and Culture: Meaningful Legal Pluralism in the Pacific and Beyond' will be hosted by the USP School of Law, Emalus Campus in Port Vila, Vanuatu from 30 August-1 September 2010.
Sounds like an adventure! For more info go to the conference website
Sounds like an adventure! For more info go to the conference website
Thursday, May 20, 2010
New Article in Law and Development Review
A critical view on TRIPs, Patents and Medical Access...
M., Gopakumar K. (2010) "Product Patents and Access to Medicines in India: A Critical Review of the Implementation of TRIPS Patent Regime," The Law and Development Review: Vol. 3 : No. 2, Article 11.
In 2005, India amended its Patents Act, 1970 to introduce TRIPS compliant product patent regime. Generally speaking, law and policy makers in India during the time of the amendment were confronted with two major concerns viz. the future of the Indian pharmaceutical industry and access to affordable medicines in India and other developing countries. To address these concerns India along with many other developing countries attempted to incorporate TRIPS flexibilities in their domestic law. However, the success of the TRIPS flexibilities in addressing the question of access to affordable medicines mainly depends on three factors: a) the incorporation of flexibilities in the domestic law; b) the manufacturing capability of a country; and c) the political will to use the public interest safeguards provided in the domestic law. There are only a few countries like India, which satisfy the above-mentioned conditions to a certain extent. This article examines whether these premises hold true after five years into the implementation of the TRIPS compliant patent system in India. In this context the paper identifies and analyzes the legal, policy and institutional challenges that India is currently facing in the implementation of TRIPS flexibilities. It also identifies the main legal, policy and institutional disconnect in the implementation of TRIPS flexibilities in India. It argues that to effectively use TRIPS flexibilities to address access to affordable medicines require changes in three areas viz. law, policy and institutions. It clearly shows that mere incorporation of TRIPS flexibilities in the domestic legislation alone is not enough and the domestic legislation needs to be complemented with policy and institutional framework.www.bepress.com/ldr/vol3/iss2/
M., Gopakumar K. (2010) "Product Patents and Access to Medicines in India: A Critical Review of the Implementation of TRIPS Patent Regime," The Law and Development Review: Vol. 3 : No. 2, Article 11.
In 2005, India amended its Patents Act, 1970 to introduce TRIPS compliant product patent regime. Generally speaking, law and policy makers in India during the time of the amendment were confronted with two major concerns viz. the future of the Indian pharmaceutical industry and access to affordable medicines in India and other developing countries. To address these concerns India along with many other developing countries attempted to incorporate TRIPS flexibilities in their domestic law. However, the success of the TRIPS flexibilities in addressing the question of access to affordable medicines mainly depends on three factors: a) the incorporation of flexibilities in the domestic law; b) the manufacturing capability of a country; and c) the political will to use the public interest safeguards provided in the domestic law. There are only a few countries like India, which satisfy the above-mentioned conditions to a certain extent. This article examines whether these premises hold true after five years into the implementation of the TRIPS compliant patent system in India. In this context the paper identifies and analyzes the legal, policy and institutional challenges that India is currently facing in the implementation of TRIPS flexibilities. It also identifies the main legal, policy and institutional disconnect in the implementation of TRIPS flexibilities in India. It argues that to effectively use TRIPS flexibilities to address access to affordable medicines require changes in three areas viz. law, policy and institutions. It clearly shows that mere incorporation of TRIPS flexibilities in the domestic legislation alone is not enough and the domestic legislation needs to be complemented with policy and institutional framework.
www.bepress.com/ldr/vol3/iss2/art11/
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Law and Development Review: Spexial Issue - New Voices from Emerging Powers - Brazil and India
This symposium looks interesting. I write looks because I am still grading finals so I do not have time to read it yet.
Law and Development review
Volume 3, Number 2 (2010)
Special Issue (2010): New Voices from Emerging Powers - Brazil and India
Introduction3
Bhupinder Chimni and David Trubek
PDF4
Linking Promises to Policies: Law and Development in an Unequal Brazil5
Diogo R. Coutinho
PDF6
The Persistence of Formalism: Towards a Situated Critique beyond the Classic Separation of Powers7
Jose R. Rodriguez
PDF8
Development Bank, Law and Innovation Financing in a New Brazilian Economy9
Mario Schapiro
PDF10
John Rawls' Justice as Fairness and the WTO: A Critical Analysis on the Initial Position of the Multilateral Agricultural Negotiation11
Rafael Rosa Cedro and Bruno Furtado Vieira
PDF12
Turning Trips on Its Head: An "IP Cross Retaliation" Model for Developing Countries13
Shamnad Basheer
PDF14
Exceptions and Limitations in Indian Copyright Law for Education: An Assessment15
Lawrence Liang
PDF16
The Indian Competition Act: A Historical and Developmental Perspective17
Shiju Varghese Mazhuvanchery
PDF18
Transit and Trade Barriers in South Asia: Multilateral Obligations and Development Perspective19
Prabir De
PDF20
Stock Market and Shareholder Protection: Are They Important for Economic Growth?21
Francis Xavier Rathinam and A. V. Raja
Law and Development review
Volume 3, Number 2 (2010)
Special Issue (2010): New Voices from Emerging Powers - Brazil and India
Introduction3
Bhupinder Chimni and David Trubek
PDF4
Linking Promises to Policies: Law and Development in an Unequal Brazil5
Diogo R. Coutinho
PDF6
The Persistence of Formalism: Towards a Situated Critique beyond the Classic Separation of Powers7
Jose R. Rodriguez
PDF8
Development Bank, Law and Innovation Financing in a New Brazilian Economy9
Mario Schapiro
PDF10
John Rawls' Justice as Fairness and the WTO: A Critical Analysis on the Initial Position of the Multilateral Agricultural Negotiation11
Rafael Rosa Cedro and Bruno Furtado Vieira
PDF12
Turning Trips on Its Head: An "IP Cross Retaliation" Model for Developing Countries13
Shamnad Basheer
PDF14
Exceptions and Limitations in Indian Copyright Law for Education: An Assessment15
Lawrence Liang
PDF16
The Indian Competition Act: A Historical and Developmental Perspective17
Shiju Varghese Mazhuvanchery
PDF18
Transit and Trade Barriers in South Asia: Multilateral Obligations and Development Perspective19
Prabir De
PDF20
Stock Market and Shareholder Protection: Are They Important for Economic Growth?21
Francis Xavier Rathinam and A. V. Raja
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Designing Antitrust Agencies for More Effective Outcomes: What Antitrust Can Learn From Restaurant Guides
I have a new essay in which I propose a user guide to measure effectiveness of regulatory agencies. The essay is Designing Antitrust Agencies for More Effective Outcomes: What Antitrust Can Learn From Restaurant Guides.
Antitrust policy should be concerned with the quality and effectiveness of the antitrust system. Some efforts at agency effectiveness include self-study of antitrust agencies to determine the factors that lead to improving agency quality. Such studies, however, often focus only on enforcement decisions and other agency initiatives such as competition advocacy. They do not reflect at least one other part of the equation: what do non-government users of the antitrust system think about the quality of antitrust agencies? This Symposium Essay advocates the use of a ratings guide by antitrust practitioners for antitrust agencies to add to the tools in which to measure agency effectiveness for both mature and emerging antitrust agencies.
Antitrust policy should be concerned with the quality and effectiveness of the antitrust system. Some efforts at agency effectiveness include self-study of antitrust agencies to determine the factors that lead to improving agency quality. Such studies, however, often focus only on enforcement decisions and other agency initiatives such as competition advocacy. They do not reflect at least one other part of the equation: what do non-government users of the antitrust system think about the quality of antitrust agencies? This Symposium Essay advocates the use of a ratings guide by antitrust practitioners for antitrust agencies to add to the tools in which to measure agency effectiveness for both mature and emerging antitrust agencies.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Who Bribes in Public Contracting and Why: Worldwide Evidence from Firms
This new article has some really interesting findings. Download it while it is hot.
Who Bribes in Public Contracting and Why: Worldwide Evidence from Firms
Utilizing data from an enterprise survey of over 11,000 firms operating in 125 countries, and building on a profit maximizing cost-benefit framework driving a firm’s bribery decision, we study the determinants of bribery in public procurement contracting. The data suggest that about one-third of firms bribe in order to secure public contracts, and that these firms pay an average of 7.9% of the contract value in bribes. The likelihood of bribing is higher in low income countries (50%), yet in industrialized OECD countries bribery does take place among a substantial minority (14%) of firms.
Econometric estimations suggest that the demand side of good governance (voice and democratic accountability, press freedom, transparency) and the supply-side (rule of law, government effectiveness), along with competition, reduce both the incidence and magnitude (fee) of procurement bribery by the firm. Multinational firms appear to partially adapt to their host country governance environment, bribing more often in medium- and low-income countries (at 20%) than in OECD countries (at 11%). Yet multinationals do not fully ‘adapt’ and thus do not behave exactly like the domestic firms in the host country (at 36%); transnational firms appear more sensitive to reputational costs in their home country and internationally as well.
Firms that are larger and foreign-owned are less likely to bribe than smaller domestic firms, yet among bribers, foreign and domestic firms pay similar bribe fees. This suggests that reputational risks - which weigh on the decision to bribe, not on the amount - play an important role. The results are consistent with the firm’s profit-maximizing framework and have implications for policy, namely in efforts to raise the cost and lower the benefits of bribing (e.g. detection and public disclosure of firms that bribe). The results also cast doubt on conventional initiatives that do not affect the profit function (such as voluntary codes of conduct).
Who Bribes in Public Contracting and Why: Worldwide Evidence from Firms
Utilizing data from an enterprise survey of over 11,000 firms operating in 125 countries, and building on a profit maximizing cost-benefit framework driving a firm’s bribery decision, we study the determinants of bribery in public procurement contracting. The data suggest that about one-third of firms bribe in order to secure public contracts, and that these firms pay an average of 7.9% of the contract value in bribes. The likelihood of bribing is higher in low income countries (50%), yet in industrialized OECD countries bribery does take place among a substantial minority (14%) of firms.
Econometric estimations suggest that the demand side of good governance (voice and democratic accountability, press freedom, transparency) and the supply-side (rule of law, government effectiveness), along with competition, reduce both the incidence and magnitude (fee) of procurement bribery by the firm. Multinational firms appear to partially adapt to their host country governance environment, bribing more often in medium- and low-income countries (at 20%) than in OECD countries (at 11%). Yet multinationals do not fully ‘adapt’ and thus do not behave exactly like the domestic firms in the host country (at 36%); transnational firms appear more sensitive to reputational costs in their home country and internationally as well.
Firms that are larger and foreign-owned are less likely to bribe than smaller domestic firms, yet among bribers, foreign and domestic firms pay similar bribe fees. This suggests that reputational risks - which weigh on the decision to bribe, not on the amount - play an important role. The results are consistent with the firm’s profit-maximizing framework and have implications for policy, namely in efforts to raise the cost and lower the benefits of bribing (e.g. detection and public disclosure of firms that bribe). The results also cast doubt on conventional initiatives that do not affect the profit function (such as voluntary codes of conduct).
Laws Locations: The Textures of Legality in Developing and Transitional Societies
Laws Locations: The Textures of Legality in Developing and Transitional Societies
April 23-25, 2010, UW Law School
The Conference titled "Laws Locations: The Textures of Legality in Developing and Transitional Societies" will be held at the University of Wisconsin Law School on April 23-25, 2010. The conference is held in conjunction with the annual symposium of the Wisconsin International Law Journal. It is part of the Research Circle on Role of Law in Developing and Transition Countries.
The conference is held in honor of Professor David Trubek, Voss Bascom Emeritus Professor of Law and Senior Fellow, Center for World Affairs and the Global Economy (WAGE).
Guest speaker:
Professor Richard Abel, Michael J Connell Professor of Law, University of California Los Angeles Law School will deliver "Personal Reminiscences of David Trubek."
Conference theme
Agenda
Speaker bios
Abstracts
Papers
Flavia Agnes
Cathi Albertyn
Helena Alviar
Joe Conti
Allison Christians
Javier Couso
Diogo Coutinho
Jackie Dugard
David Engel
Mary Gallagher
Manuel Gomez
Mario Gomez
Diana Kapiszewski
Jonathan Klaaren
Lisa Laplante
Lauren McCarthy
Sally Merry
Shunko Rojas
Alvaro Santos
Greg Shaffer
Mario Schapiro
Druscilla Scribner
Mauricio Villegas
April 23-25, 2010, UW Law School
The Conference titled "Laws Locations: The Textures of Legality in Developing and Transitional Societies" will be held at the University of Wisconsin Law School on April 23-25, 2010. The conference is held in conjunction with the annual symposium of the Wisconsin International Law Journal. It is part of the Research Circle on Role of Law in Developing and Transition Countries.
The conference is held in honor of Professor David Trubek, Voss Bascom Emeritus Professor of Law and Senior Fellow, Center for World Affairs and the Global Economy (WAGE).
Guest speaker:
Professor Richard Abel, Michael J Connell Professor of Law, University of California Los Angeles Law School will deliver "Personal Reminiscences of David Trubek."
Conference theme
Agenda
Speaker bios
Abstracts
Papers
Flavia Agnes
Cathi Albertyn
Helena Alviar
Joe Conti
Allison Christians
Javier Couso
Diogo Coutinho
Jackie Dugard
David Engel
Mary Gallagher
Manuel Gomez
Mario Gomez
Diana Kapiszewski
Jonathan Klaaren
Lisa Laplante
Lauren McCarthy
Sally Merry
Shunko Rojas
Alvaro Santos
Greg Shaffer
Mario Schapiro
Druscilla Scribner
Mauricio Villegas
Saturday, April 3, 2010
LLSV Revisited Symposium in the BYU Law Review
Volume 2009, no. 6
Articles
“Law and Finance”: Inaccurate, Incomplete, and Important
Ruth V. Aguilera and Cynthia A. Williams
Law and Financial Development: What We Are Learning from Time-Series Evidence
John Armour, Simon Deakin, Viviana Mollica, and Mathias Siems
Legal Regimes and Political Particularism: An Assessment of the “Legal Families” Theory from the Perspectives of Comparative Law and Political Economy
John W. Cioffi
Unpacking Adaptability
Andreas Engert and D. Gordon Smith
The Legal Origins Theory in Crisis
Lisa M. Fairfax
Legal Origins and the Tasks of Corporate Law in Economic Development: A Preliminary Exploration
John Ohnesorge
A "Law & Personal Finance" View of Legal Origins Theory
Karl S. Okamoto
Rethinking the "Law and Finance" Paradigm
Katharina Pistor
Legal Origins, Investor Protection, and Canada
Poonam Puri
Mixing-and-Matching Across (Legal) Family Lines
J. Mark Ramseyer
Competition Policy and Comparative Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises
D. Daniel Sokol
Contemporary Legal Transplants: Legal Families and the Diffusion of (Corporate) Law
Holger Spamann
Legal Origins, Functionalism, and the Future of Comparative Law
Christopher A. Whytock
Articles
“Law and Finance”: Inaccurate, Incomplete, and Important
Ruth V. Aguilera and Cynthia A. Williams
Law and Financial Development: What We Are Learning from Time-Series Evidence
John Armour, Simon Deakin, Viviana Mollica, and Mathias Siems
Legal Regimes and Political Particularism: An Assessment of the “Legal Families” Theory from the Perspectives of Comparative Law and Political Economy
John W. Cioffi
Unpacking Adaptability
Andreas Engert and D. Gordon Smith
The Legal Origins Theory in Crisis
Lisa M. Fairfax
Legal Origins and the Tasks of Corporate Law in Economic Development: A Preliminary Exploration
John Ohnesorge
A "Law & Personal Finance" View of Legal Origins Theory
Karl S. Okamoto
Rethinking the "Law and Finance" Paradigm
Katharina Pistor
Legal Origins, Investor Protection, and Canada
Poonam Puri
Mixing-and-Matching Across (Legal) Family Lines
J. Mark Ramseyer
Competition Policy and Comparative Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises
D. Daniel Sokol
Contemporary Legal Transplants: Legal Families and the Diffusion of (Corporate) Law
Holger Spamann
Legal Origins, Functionalism, and the Future of Comparative Law
Christopher A. Whytock
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Technology Entrepreneurship and Management Conference and Call for Papers
The Brown International Advanced Research Institutes (BIARI) ambitious new program is designed to provide a valuable professional development opportunity for young faculty in the early stages of their research and teaching careers.
From June 13th - June 26th 2010, we will convene 30-40 emerging scholars at an Institute on Technology Entrepreneurship and Management at Brown University in the United States.
This Institute will provide a forum for presenting and discussing research on a broad range of current themes in entrepreneurship studies and related disciplines. Perspectives will include, but are by no means limited to: development economics, organizational and economic sociology, management theory, and technology studies. The program will devote particular attention to similarities and differences between entrepreneurship in the ‘Global North’ and ‘Global South’; however, work with a purely Southern or purely Northern focus is also welcome, especially if the researcher is receptive to cross-national comparisons.
Instructors and keynote speakers at the Institute will be a mix of Brown faculty and leading scholars from institutions around the world. Further details about the Institute can be found here.
Technology Entrepreneurship and Management is one of four Institutes being held in June 2010. To learn more about the BIARI initiative and the application process. please visit our website at: http://brown.edu/BIARI
The Brown International Advanced Research Institutes program has been generously funded by Brown University and Santander Universities. Successful applicants will receive travel assistance, be hosted in University residential housing and be provided catered meals. During
the Institute, participants will have access to Brown University's world class research facilities. Please send questions and comments to BIARI@brown.edu.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Unpacking Adaptability
I just read an interesting new paper on LLSV.
Unpacking Adaptability
Andreas Engert
Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich - Institute of International Law - Comparative Law
D. Gordon Smith
Brigham Young University - J. Reuben Clark Law School
Brigham Young University Law Review, p. 1553, 2009
Abstract: Legal Origins Theory -- first proposed over a decade ago by Rafael La Porta, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer and Robert W. Vishny -- holds that adaptable legal systems produce superior substantive law that, in turn, leads to superior economic outcomes. In this essay, we examine this adaptability hypothesis. The chief methodological challenge confronting the empirical study of adaptability is that researchers cannot measure adaptability directly. Legal Origins Theory attempts to surmount this challenge, in the first instance, by using legal institutions as proxies for adaptability. One of the foundational assumptions of Legal Origins Theory is that courts engage in highly contextualized rulemaking that improves the quality of law over time. Legal Origins Theory then takes this assumption one step further, asserting that “judicial law making and adaptation play a greater role in common than in civil law.” Thus, legal origin becomes a second-order proxy for adaptability. We contend that adaptability is undertheorized and that a more nuanced understanding of adaptability reveals the implausibility of legal origin as proxy for adaptability.
Unpacking Adaptability
Andreas Engert
Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich - Institute of International Law - Comparative Law
D. Gordon Smith
Brigham Young University - J. Reuben Clark Law School
Brigham Young University Law Review, p. 1553, 2009
Abstract: Legal Origins Theory -- first proposed over a decade ago by Rafael La Porta, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer and Robert W. Vishny -- holds that adaptable legal systems produce superior substantive law that, in turn, leads to superior economic outcomes. In this essay, we examine this adaptability hypothesis. The chief methodological challenge confronting the empirical study of adaptability is that researchers cannot measure adaptability directly. Legal Origins Theory attempts to surmount this challenge, in the first instance, by using legal institutions as proxies for adaptability. One of the foundational assumptions of Legal Origins Theory is that courts engage in highly contextualized rulemaking that improves the quality of law over time. Legal Origins Theory then takes this assumption one step further, asserting that “judicial law making and adaptation play a greater role in common than in civil law.” Thus, legal origin becomes a second-order proxy for adaptability. We contend that adaptability is undertheorized and that a more nuanced understanding of adaptability reveals the implausibility of legal origin as proxy for adaptability.
Harvard Institute for Global Law and Policy Workshop on Global Law and Economic Policy
The Institute for Global Law and Policy is proud to announce our first annual Workshop on Global Law and Economic Policy, June 2-11, 2010 at Harvard Law School.
IGLP: The Workshop is an intensive ten day residential program designed for doctoral and post-doctoral scholars. The Workshop aims to promote innovative ideas and alternative approaches to issues of global law, economic policy and social justice in the aftermath of the economic crisis. The initiative will bring young scholars and faculty from around the world together with leading faculty working on issues of global law and economic policy for serious research collaboration and debate. Hosted by Harvard Law School, The Workshop aims to bring together specialists from across the arts and sciences as well as the professional schools who are interested in the intersections between law, economics and global policy.
The Workshop is funded with generous support from Santander Universities and Sovereign Bank
It is co-sponsored by the School for Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, the Bernard and Audre Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice at the University of Texas, and Sciences Po Law School in Paris.
Professor David Kennedy will serve as Faculty Director for the Workshop. He is Director of The Institute for Global Law and Policy and Professor of Law at Harvard Law School where he teaches international law, international economic policy, legal theory, law and development and European law. His research uses interdisciplinary materials from sociology and social theory, economics and history to explore issues of global governance, development policy and the nature of professional expertise.
The Core Faculty for 2010 will include:
Matthew Craven, Dean of the Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, Professor of International Law and Director, Centre for the Study of Colonialism, Empire and International Law, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London; Dennis Davis, Judge of the High Court of Cape Town, South Africa; Christine Desan, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School; Karen Engle, Cecil D. Redford Professor in Law and Director, Bernard and Audre Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice, University of Texas; Jorge Esquirol, Professor of Law and Director of International & Comparative Law Programs, Florida International University College of Law; Roy Kreitner, Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv; Susan Marks, Professor of Public International Law, King's College London; Vasuki Nesiah, Lecturer in Law, Brown University; Kerry Rittich, Associate Professor at The Faculty of Law and the Women's and Gender Studies Institute at The University of Toronto; Alvaro Santos, Associate Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center; Chantal Thomas, Professor of Law and Director of the Clarke Initiative for Law and Development in the Middle East and North Africa, Cornell Law School; Robert Wai, Associate Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, Toronto; Mikhail Xifaras, Professor of Law, Sciences Po Law School.
The Core Faculty will be joined by speakers and discussants from Harvard and other leading universities.
While in residence at Harvard, participants will review current scholarly developments and reconsider canonical texts with the aim of strengthening our ability to understand and influence the shape and direction of global economic policy and law. Afternoon pro-seminars will offer participants the opportunity to share their own work in progress with colleagues and leading scholars in their field.
IGLP: The Workshop will be organized around six Program Themes:
The Structure and History of Global Law
Global Political Economy: The Architecture of Monetary and Financial Integration
Human Rights and Social Justice
International Economic Policy and Transnational Regulation
Law and Economic Development
Global Law: Universality and Constitutionalism
Exploration of each Program Theme will be led by a team of senior scholars and will be designed to promote discussion on recent scholarly trends as well as classical texts. In addition there will be several plenary talks by leading scholars and policy makers. All participants in The Workshop will have an opportunity to participate in exploration of each thematic area and to share their own scholarship. Our goal will be to understand the history and structure of our contemporary world political and economic system. We will aim to map modern money, finance, development, governance, regulation and social justice, opening them to contestation and debate.
Click here to Apply to IGLP: The Workshop!
The Institute for Global Law and Policy is committed to keeping the Workshop as cost-free as possible for admitted applicants, including travel, meals and lodging.
Click Here for Information about Traveling to Harvard.
IGLP: The Workshop is an intensive ten day residential program designed for doctoral and post-doctoral scholars. The Workshop aims to promote innovative ideas and alternative approaches to issues of global law, economic policy and social justice in the aftermath of the economic crisis. The initiative will bring young scholars and faculty from around the world together with leading faculty working on issues of global law and economic policy for serious research collaboration and debate. Hosted by Harvard Law School, The Workshop aims to bring together specialists from across the arts and sciences as well as the professional schools who are interested in the intersections between law, economics and global policy.
The Workshop is funded with generous support from Santander Universities and Sovereign Bank
It is co-sponsored by the School for Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, the Bernard and Audre Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice at the University of Texas, and Sciences Po Law School in Paris.
Professor David Kennedy will serve as Faculty Director for the Workshop. He is Director of The Institute for Global Law and Policy and Professor of Law at Harvard Law School where he teaches international law, international economic policy, legal theory, law and development and European law. His research uses interdisciplinary materials from sociology and social theory, economics and history to explore issues of global governance, development policy and the nature of professional expertise.
The Core Faculty for 2010 will include:
Matthew Craven, Dean of the Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, Professor of International Law and Director, Centre for the Study of Colonialism, Empire and International Law, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London; Dennis Davis, Judge of the High Court of Cape Town, South Africa; Christine Desan, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School; Karen Engle, Cecil D. Redford Professor in Law and Director, Bernard and Audre Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice, University of Texas; Jorge Esquirol, Professor of Law and Director of International & Comparative Law Programs, Florida International University College of Law; Roy Kreitner, Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv; Susan Marks, Professor of Public International Law, King's College London; Vasuki Nesiah, Lecturer in Law, Brown University; Kerry Rittich, Associate Professor at The Faculty of Law and the Women's and Gender Studies Institute at The University of Toronto; Alvaro Santos, Associate Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center; Chantal Thomas, Professor of Law and Director of the Clarke Initiative for Law and Development in the Middle East and North Africa, Cornell Law School; Robert Wai, Associate Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, Toronto; Mikhail Xifaras, Professor of Law, Sciences Po Law School.
The Core Faculty will be joined by speakers and discussants from Harvard and other leading universities.
While in residence at Harvard, participants will review current scholarly developments and reconsider canonical texts with the aim of strengthening our ability to understand and influence the shape and direction of global economic policy and law. Afternoon pro-seminars will offer participants the opportunity to share their own work in progress with colleagues and leading scholars in their field.
IGLP: The Workshop will be organized around six Program Themes:
The Structure and History of Global Law
Global Political Economy: The Architecture of Monetary and Financial Integration
Human Rights and Social Justice
International Economic Policy and Transnational Regulation
Law and Economic Development
Global Law: Universality and Constitutionalism
Exploration of each Program Theme will be led by a team of senior scholars and will be designed to promote discussion on recent scholarly trends as well as classical texts. In addition there will be several plenary talks by leading scholars and policy makers. All participants in The Workshop will have an opportunity to participate in exploration of each thematic area and to share their own scholarship. Our goal will be to understand the history and structure of our contemporary world political and economic system. We will aim to map modern money, finance, development, governance, regulation and social justice, opening them to contestation and debate.
Click here to Apply to IGLP: The Workshop!
The Institute for Global Law and Policy is committed to keeping the Workshop as cost-free as possible for admitted applicants, including travel, meals and lodging.
Click Here for Information about Traveling to Harvard.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Law, Finance and Development: Further Analyses of Longitudinal Data
Prabirjit Sarkar, Centre for Business Research,University of Cambridge, Jadavpur University and Ajit Singh, University of Cambridge explore Law, Finance and Development: Further Analyses of Longitudinal Data.
ABSTRACT: This paper analyses a longitudinal dataset on legal protection of shareholders over a 36 year period, 1970-2005, for four advanced countries, the UK, France, Germany and the USA. It examines two aspects of the legal origin hypothesis-whether shareholder protection is higher in the common law countries (UK and USA) than in the civil law countries (France and Germany) and whether shareholder protection matters for stock market development in the short and long runs. It also examines the ‘causation’ issue and the ‘endogeneity’ problem-whether greater shareholder protection leads to stock market development or whether stock market development leads to changes in law. The paper casts serious doubt on the validity of the basic theses of the Anglo Saxon legal and developmental model.
ABSTRACT: This paper analyses a longitudinal dataset on legal protection of shareholders over a 36 year period, 1970-2005, for four advanced countries, the UK, France, Germany and the USA. It examines two aspects of the legal origin hypothesis-whether shareholder protection is higher in the common law countries (UK and USA) than in the civil law countries (France and Germany) and whether shareholder protection matters for stock market development in the short and long runs. It also examines the ‘causation’ issue and the ‘endogeneity’ problem-whether greater shareholder protection leads to stock market development or whether stock market development leads to changes in law. The paper casts serious doubt on the validity of the basic theses of the Anglo Saxon legal and developmental model.
Afghanistan and the Future of State Building
The University of La Verne College of Law presents What Makes States Successful? Afghanistan and the Future of State Building April 15-17, 2010.
State failure is one of the most challenging public policy problems of our age. Despite the pressures of globalization on the autonomy of states, they remain the most important locations of institutions to promote justice and the welfare of the peoples of the world. States are vital to maintaining peace and security across the globe. We need states to succeed. But they sometimes fail. Why? And how do we turn failed states into successful states? This symposium examines these questions with a four-fold focus. First, the focus is on state failure that is either caused by or is in some way related to armed conflict within a state, either from a civil war or from armed intervention by intervening states, United Nations Security Council action, or otherwise. Second, the focus is on institutional solutions to state failure, with an emphasis on rule of law. Third, the focus is on developing action plans or protocols containing concrete solutions to help failed states become successful states. Fourth, the symposium focuses on Afghanistan. Afghanistan provides a rich source of data and experience on what works and what fails, although Afghanistan remains very much a work in progress. An important symposium aim is to produce policy guidance for future directions in that country. The symposium approach is multi-disciplinary, with the goal of learning from a diversity of views.
Keynote Speakers:
•H.E. Mohammad Eshak Aloko
Attorney General of Afghanistan
•Cherif Bassiouni
Distinguished Research Professor of Law, DePaul University
College of Law , President Emeritus of the International
Human Rights Law Institute
•Hon. Pierre-Richard Prosper
Former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues
Panel Discussions Include:
•Are Protocols Possible?
•Constitutions, Multicultural Democracies, and Citizenship
•Criminal Justice
•Human Rights
•Immediate Post-Conflict Priorities
•Militaries and National Security Institutions
•Military Intervention
•Transitional Justice
Event Schedule:
Event Schedule
Panelists Include:
•Juan Botero
Rule of Law Index Director, World Justice Project
•Hon. David O. Carter
U.S. District Judge, Central District of California
•Feryal Cherif
Assistant Professor of Political Science,
University of California Riverside
•Marisa S. Cianciarulo
Associate Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law
•Erin Daly
Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development, Widener University School of Law
•Michael Delaney
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for South Asia
•John Dempsey
Senior Rule of Law Adviser, Kabul,
United States Institute of Peace
•Jasteena Dhillon
Associate Fellow, Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy
•Elise Groulx Diggs
President, International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association
•Lew Diggs
Principal, L.H. Diggs Consulting Services
•Jonathan Eddy
Director, Asian Law Center; Manager, Afghanistan Legal Educators Project and Professor of Law, University of Washington School of Law
•Pierre Englebert
Professor of Politics, Pomona College
•Fatima Gailani
President, Afghanistan Red Crescent Society
•David Glazier
Professor of Law, Loyola Los Angeles Law School
•Tiffany Graham
Associate Professor of Law, University of La Verne College of Law
•Ric Grenell
Former Director of Communications and Public Diplomacy for the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations; Senior Vice President for Communications for DaVita, Inc.
•John Hall
Associate Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law
•Hon. Kerry Murphy Healey
Former Lieutenant Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
•Col. V. Joshi
Canada Deputy Judge Advocate General/Military Justice and Administrative Law
•David Kaye
Executive Director, UCLA International Human Rights Program
•Steve Kraft
Director, Afghanistan-Pakistan Office, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, U.S. Department of State
•Hon. Stephen G. Larson
Partner, Girardi Keese
•LCol (Ret.) David Last
Professor of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada
•John Linarelli
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law,
University of La Verne College of Law
•Grey Maggiano
Justice Program Manager, Afghanistan-Pakistan Office, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs,
U.S. Department of State
•Major Jeremy Marsh
U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, Charlottesville, VA
•Admiral (Ret.) Bruce MacDonald
former Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy
•Col. Dominic D. McAlea
Canada Deputy Judge Advocate Regional Services Ottawa
•CDR Caren McCurdy
U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General
•Serge Michailof
former Executive Director Agence
Francaise de Développement
•Hon. Douglas P. Miller
Associate Justice, California Court of Appeal
•Hon. Robert O’Brien
Managing Partner, Arent Fox LLP; Co-Chair, U.S. Department of State Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan
•Mary Ellen O’Connell
Robert and Marion Short Professor of Law and Research Professor of International Dispute Resolution, University of Notre Dame Law School
•Cesare Pinelli
Professor of Regional and Constitutional Law,
University of Rome La Sapienza
•Rohullah Qarizada
President, Afghanistan Independent Bar Association
•Lako Tongun
Associate Professor of International and Intercultural Studies,
Pitzer College
State failure is one of the most challenging public policy problems of our age. Despite the pressures of globalization on the autonomy of states, they remain the most important locations of institutions to promote justice and the welfare of the peoples of the world. States are vital to maintaining peace and security across the globe. We need states to succeed. But they sometimes fail. Why? And how do we turn failed states into successful states? This symposium examines these questions with a four-fold focus. First, the focus is on state failure that is either caused by or is in some way related to armed conflict within a state, either from a civil war or from armed intervention by intervening states, United Nations Security Council action, or otherwise. Second, the focus is on institutional solutions to state failure, with an emphasis on rule of law. Third, the focus is on developing action plans or protocols containing concrete solutions to help failed states become successful states. Fourth, the symposium focuses on Afghanistan. Afghanistan provides a rich source of data and experience on what works and what fails, although Afghanistan remains very much a work in progress. An important symposium aim is to produce policy guidance for future directions in that country. The symposium approach is multi-disciplinary, with the goal of learning from a diversity of views.
Keynote Speakers:
•H.E. Mohammad Eshak Aloko
Attorney General of Afghanistan
•Cherif Bassiouni
Distinguished Research Professor of Law, DePaul University
College of Law , President Emeritus of the International
Human Rights Law Institute
•Hon. Pierre-Richard Prosper
Former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues
Panel Discussions Include:
•Are Protocols Possible?
•Constitutions, Multicultural Democracies, and Citizenship
•Criminal Justice
•Human Rights
•Immediate Post-Conflict Priorities
•Militaries and National Security Institutions
•Military Intervention
•Transitional Justice
Event Schedule:
Event Schedule
Panelists Include:
•Juan Botero
Rule of Law Index Director, World Justice Project
•Hon. David O. Carter
U.S. District Judge, Central District of California
•Feryal Cherif
Assistant Professor of Political Science,
University of California Riverside
•Marisa S. Cianciarulo
Associate Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law
•Erin Daly
Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development, Widener University School of Law
•Michael Delaney
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for South Asia
•John Dempsey
Senior Rule of Law Adviser, Kabul,
United States Institute of Peace
•Jasteena Dhillon
Associate Fellow, Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy
•Elise Groulx Diggs
President, International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association
•Lew Diggs
Principal, L.H. Diggs Consulting Services
•Jonathan Eddy
Director, Asian Law Center; Manager, Afghanistan Legal Educators Project and Professor of Law, University of Washington School of Law
•Pierre Englebert
Professor of Politics, Pomona College
•Fatima Gailani
President, Afghanistan Red Crescent Society
•David Glazier
Professor of Law, Loyola Los Angeles Law School
•Tiffany Graham
Associate Professor of Law, University of La Verne College of Law
•Ric Grenell
Former Director of Communications and Public Diplomacy for the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations; Senior Vice President for Communications for DaVita, Inc.
•John Hall
Associate Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law
•Hon. Kerry Murphy Healey
Former Lieutenant Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
•Col. V. Joshi
Canada Deputy Judge Advocate General/Military Justice and Administrative Law
•David Kaye
Executive Director, UCLA International Human Rights Program
•Steve Kraft
Director, Afghanistan-Pakistan Office, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, U.S. Department of State
•Hon. Stephen G. Larson
Partner, Girardi Keese
•LCol (Ret.) David Last
Professor of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada
•John Linarelli
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law,
University of La Verne College of Law
•Grey Maggiano
Justice Program Manager, Afghanistan-Pakistan Office, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs,
U.S. Department of State
•Major Jeremy Marsh
U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, Charlottesville, VA
•Admiral (Ret.) Bruce MacDonald
former Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy
•Col. Dominic D. McAlea
Canada Deputy Judge Advocate Regional Services Ottawa
•CDR Caren McCurdy
U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General
•Serge Michailof
former Executive Director Agence
Francaise de Développement
•Hon. Douglas P. Miller
Associate Justice, California Court of Appeal
•Hon. Robert O’Brien
Managing Partner, Arent Fox LLP; Co-Chair, U.S. Department of State Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan
•Mary Ellen O’Connell
Robert and Marion Short Professor of Law and Research Professor of International Dispute Resolution, University of Notre Dame Law School
•Cesare Pinelli
Professor of Regional and Constitutional Law,
University of Rome La Sapienza
•Rohullah Qarizada
President, Afghanistan Independent Bar Association
•Lako Tongun
Associate Professor of International and Intercultural Studies,
Pitzer College
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Important Law and Development Session at Law and Society this May in Chicago
Scheduled Time: Sat, May 29 - 2:30pm - 4:15pm Building/Room: Renaissance / tba 03
Title Displayed in Event Calendar: CRN24 Rule of Law, State Building, and Transition--Roundtable--Success in Law and Development: Evaluating the Conventional Wisdom of Using Evidence from the Field 3403
Abstract: Law and development works involves Assessing existing rights and duties, Building capacity, Contesting existing and future rights and duties, Delegating the implementation of projects and Evaluating outcomes. This round table is made up of participants who have conducted extensive field work in developing and transitional economies. Drawing on their field work, each participant will give a short presentation about the extent to which a specific legal reform program has achieved its objectives. Thereafter, there will be a round table discussion covering a broader discussion on the role of legal reforms and what is working and what is not. At this point the audience will be invited to participate in the discussion.
Session chair: Amanda Perry-Kessaris, Birkbeck, University of London
Participants:
Elin Cohen (University of Washington) evaluates the Kenyan government's efforts to improve the business climate and stimulate economic growth by supporting small business associations.
Jon Eddy (Univeristy of Washington) rethinks assumptions underlying US Rule of Law efforts in Afghanistan.
Kevin Fandl (American University) examines the relationship between weak rule of law, including business registration and legal compliance and the informal economy in Colombia.
Amanda Perry-Kessaris (Birkbeck, University of London) evaluates the World Bank's attempts to increase foreign direct investment by encouraging the Government of India to reform Indian laws and legal institutions.
Veronica Taylor (University of Washington/ Australian National University) presents new empirical findings from China that challenge the common assumptions about the benefits of clinical law programs and legal aid projects.
Title Displayed in Event Calendar: CRN24 Rule of Law, State Building, and Transition--Roundtable--Success in Law and Development: Evaluating the Conventional Wisdom of Using Evidence from the Field 3403
Abstract: Law and development works involves Assessing existing rights and duties, Building capacity, Contesting existing and future rights and duties, Delegating the implementation of projects and Evaluating outcomes. This round table is made up of participants who have conducted extensive field work in developing and transitional economies. Drawing on their field work, each participant will give a short presentation about the extent to which a specific legal reform program has achieved its objectives. Thereafter, there will be a round table discussion covering a broader discussion on the role of legal reforms and what is working and what is not. At this point the audience will be invited to participate in the discussion.
Session chair: Amanda Perry-Kessaris, Birkbeck, University of London
Participants:
Elin Cohen (University of Washington) evaluates the Kenyan government's efforts to improve the business climate and stimulate economic growth by supporting small business associations.
Jon Eddy (Univeristy of Washington) rethinks assumptions underlying US Rule of Law efforts in Afghanistan.
Kevin Fandl (American University) examines the relationship between weak rule of law, including business registration and legal compliance and the informal economy in Colombia.
Amanda Perry-Kessaris (Birkbeck, University of London) evaluates the World Bank's attempts to increase foreign direct investment by encouraging the Government of India to reform Indian laws and legal institutions.
Veronica Taylor (University of Washington/ Australian National University) presents new empirical findings from China that challenge the common assumptions about the benefits of clinical law programs and legal aid projects.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Book review for Latin American Competition Law and Policy
Ricardo Jungmann of the Catholic University of Chile has a very nice book review of my book Latin American Competition Law and Policy.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Formal or Informal Justice in Afghanistan
Interesting view on role law and development might play in Afghanistan. Here
Sunday, February 14, 2010
The Future of Development: Human Rights and International Aid Beyond the Economic Crisis
Yale Law School will host
Bernstein Symposium 2010
The Future of Development:
Human Rights and International Aid Beyond the Economic Crisis
Robert L. Bernstein International Human Rights Fellowship Symposium
Sponsored by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
April 8-9, 2010
Bernstein Symposium 2010
The Future of Development:
Human Rights and International Aid Beyond the Economic Crisis
Robert L. Bernstein International Human Rights Fellowship Symposium
Sponsored by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
April 8-9, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Competition Policy and Comparative Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises
My newest paper, Competition Policy and Comparative Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises, is available on SSRN.
ABSTRACT: The legal origins literature overlooks a key area of corporate governance - the governance of state-owned enterprises (“SOEs”). There are key theoretical differences between SOEs and publicly-traded corporations. In comparing the differences of both internal and external controls of SOEs, none of the existing legal origins allow for effective corporate governance monitoring. Because of the difficulties of undertaking a cross-country quantitative review of the governance of SOEs, this Article examines, through a series of case studies, SOE governance issues among postal providers. The examination of postal firms supports the larger theoretical claim about the weaknesses of SOE governance across legal origins. In itself, the lack of effective corporate governance would not be fatal if some of the SOE’s inefficient and societal-welfare-reducing behavior could be remedied under antitrust law. However, a review of antitrust decisions on the issue of predatory pricing by SOEs reveals that antitrust is equally ineffective in its attempts to monitor SOEs. This Article concludes by identifying a number of devices to reduce the current inadequacies of both antitrust and corporate governance of SOEs.
ABSTRACT: The legal origins literature overlooks a key area of corporate governance - the governance of state-owned enterprises (“SOEs”). There are key theoretical differences between SOEs and publicly-traded corporations. In comparing the differences of both internal and external controls of SOEs, none of the existing legal origins allow for effective corporate governance monitoring. Because of the difficulties of undertaking a cross-country quantitative review of the governance of SOEs, this Article examines, through a series of case studies, SOE governance issues among postal providers. The examination of postal firms supports the larger theoretical claim about the weaknesses of SOE governance across legal origins. In itself, the lack of effective corporate governance would not be fatal if some of the SOE’s inefficient and societal-welfare-reducing behavior could be remedied under antitrust law. However, a review of antitrust decisions on the issue of predatory pricing by SOEs reveals that antitrust is equally ineffective in its attempts to monitor SOEs. This Article concludes by identifying a number of devices to reduce the current inadequacies of both antitrust and corporate governance of SOEs.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Symposium: The Future of Law and Development, Part V
The final part of our blog symposium series is up, with contributions from Veronica Taylor (U. Washington) and John Ohnesorge (Wisconsin).
Friday, January 22, 2010
Kaufmann on the Misuse of Law
Daniel Kaufmann of Brookings has a great post on Misrule of Law Matters: Time to Reboot?
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The Future of Law and Development Symposium Recap
The Future of Law and Development Symposium was our first online blog venture in the world of symposia. I think it was a great success. Thank you to all of our participants and the staff of the Northwestern Law Review Colloquy.
To find the various postings (which are also available via westlaw and lexis) see the following:
Part I
Tom Ginsburg (Chicago), Salil Mehra (Temple), Katharina Pistor (Columbia), & Anna Gelpern (American)
Part II
Mariana Prado (Toronto), Susan D. Franck (Washington & Lee), & John Cioffi (UC Riverside)
Part III
Kevin Davis (NYU), Adam Feibelman (Carolina), Brian Z. Tamanaha (Wash U), & Yuka Kaneko (Kobe)
Part IV
D. Daniel Sokol (Florida) & Daniel Kaufmann (Brookings)
To find the various postings (which are also available via westlaw and lexis) see the following:
Part I
Tom Ginsburg (Chicago), Salil Mehra (Temple), Katharina Pistor (Columbia), & Anna Gelpern (American)
Part II
Mariana Prado (Toronto), Susan D. Franck (Washington & Lee), & John Cioffi (UC Riverside)
Part III
Kevin Davis (NYU), Adam Feibelman (Carolina), Brian Z. Tamanaha (Wash U), & Yuka Kaneko (Kobe)
Part IV
D. Daniel Sokol (Florida) & Daniel Kaufmann (Brookings)
Monday, January 11, 2010
Symposium: The Future of Law and Development, Part IV
The final part of the Future of Law and Development is up on the Northwestern Law Review website, availabloe here. The final set of contributions come from Daniel Sokol (University of Florida) and Daniel Kaufmann (Brookings Institution).
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Marketing and Selling Transnational ‘Judges’ and Global ‘Experts’: Building the Credibility of (Quasi)Judicial Regulation
There is a new piece out worth reading on Marketing and Selling Transnational ‘Judges’ and Global ‘Experts’: Building the Credibility of (Quasi)Judicial Regulation by Yves M. Dezalay, National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS)Bryant Garth, Southwestern Law School, American Bar Foundation.
ABSTRACT: Drawing on examples from the fields of international commercial arbitration and international human rights, in particular, and also on trade, intellectual property and governance, this article explores the processes through which transnational norms are created and legitimated. The article rejects approaches that presume an international consensus around norms or simply the imposition of Northern norms and technologies on the South, showing instead how the fields are developed, the advantages that favour ideas and approaches that are credible in the North, and also how limited openings to individuals from the South subtly modify the norms - which in turn reinforces their legitimacy. The article also shows that legal processes, courts and court-like approaches serve to capture both the hierarchies of the field and the processes that can allow a slow evolution that produces some change-but no challenge to the basic orientation.
ABSTRACT: Drawing on examples from the fields of international commercial arbitration and international human rights, in particular, and also on trade, intellectual property and governance, this article explores the processes through which transnational norms are created and legitimated. The article rejects approaches that presume an international consensus around norms or simply the imposition of Northern norms and technologies on the South, showing instead how the fields are developed, the advantages that favour ideas and approaches that are credible in the North, and also how limited openings to individuals from the South subtly modify the norms - which in turn reinforces their legitimacy. The article also shows that legal processes, courts and court-like approaches serve to capture both the hierarchies of the field and the processes that can allow a slow evolution that produces some change-but no challenge to the basic orientation.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Law and Development in Antitrust - the Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law
Over at the Antitrust and Competition Policy Blog, Wentong Zheng (Buffalo Law) has a series of great posts analyzing the first year of the Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law.
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Post 4
Post 5
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Post 4
Post 5
Friday, January 1, 2010
An Important New article on Legal Origins - Specifically Legal Origins in Roman Law
A fun article to read this break has been Ulrike Malmendier's "Law and Finance "at the Origin"." Journal of Economic Literature, 47(4): 1076–1108 (2009). It is in the current issue.
ABSTRACT: What are the key determinants of financial development and growth? A large literature debates the relative importance of countries' legal and political environment. In this paper, I present evidence from ancient Rome, where an early form of shareholder company, the societas publicanorum, developed. I show that the societas publicanorum flourished in a legally underdeveloped but politically supportive environment (Roman Republic) and disappeared when Roman law reached its height of legal sophistication but the political environment grew less supportive (Roman Empire). In the Roman case, legal development appears to have mattered little as long as the law as practiced was flexible and adapted to economic needs. The "law as practiced," in turn, reflected prevalent political interests. After discussing parallels in more recent history, I provide a brief overview of the literature on law and finance and on politics and finance. The historical evidence suggests that legal systems may be less of a technological constraint for growth than previously thought -- at least "at the origin."
ABSTRACT: What are the key determinants of financial development and growth? A large literature debates the relative importance of countries' legal and political environment. In this paper, I present evidence from ancient Rome, where an early form of shareholder company, the societas publicanorum, developed. I show that the societas publicanorum flourished in a legally underdeveloped but politically supportive environment (Roman Republic) and disappeared when Roman law reached its height of legal sophistication but the political environment grew less supportive (Roman Empire). In the Roman case, legal development appears to have mattered little as long as the law as practiced was flexible and adapted to economic needs. The "law as practiced," in turn, reflected prevalent political interests. After discussing parallels in more recent history, I provide a brief overview of the literature on law and finance and on politics and finance. The historical evidence suggests that legal systems may be less of a technological constraint for growth than previously thought -- at least "at the origin."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)