Behavioral Economics

Online
Post
U.S. v. Kordel, Parallel Proceedings, and the Value of Statistical Freedom
George Vojta
George Vojta is a J.D. Candidate at the University of Chicago Law School, Class of 2025, and a Ph.D. Candidate in Economics at the University of Chicago.

The author thanks his parents Deneen and Chris Vojta, his siblings, Charles and Grace Vojta, Shiri Gross, Judge Thomas L. Kirsch II, and the University of Chicago Law Review Online team.

This Essay proposes using the dilemma defendants face in parallel proceedings as a way to measure the Value of Statistical Freedom (VSF). The VSF (sometimes called the Value of Liberty) can be thought of as an individual’s willingness to pay to not be in prison. The VSF is spiritually similar to the far more prevalent “Value of Statistical Life” (VSL), which measures the willingness to trade money or wealth in exchange for an increase in the mortality probability.

Print
Article
85.1
Sticky Regulations
Aaron L. Nielson
Associate Professor, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University

The author thanks Stephanie Bair, Jim Brau, Emily Bremer, Brigham Daniels, Daniel Hemel, David Moore, Carolina Núñez, Jarrod Shobe, Paul Stancil, Lisa Grow Sun, Christopher Walker, the participants in the 2017 Center for the Study of the Administrative State’s Research Roundtable on Rethinking Due Process and accompanying public policy conference held at the Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, and the participants in the 2016 Rocky Mountain Junior Scholars Forum held at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah. Michael A. Stevens provided helpful research assistance. Financial support was provided by Brigham Young University and the Center for the Study of the Administrative State.

Modern administrative law is often said to present a dilemma.

2
Article
78.1
The Creativity Effect
Christopher Buccafusco
Assistant Professor, Chicago-Kent College of Law
Christopher Jon Sprigman
Professor, University of Virginia School of Law

This research has been supported by grants from the John M. Olin Foundation and the University of Virginia Law School Foundation. The authors wish to thank Diego Leclery, Nevin Tomlinson, and Michelle Grabner of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago for helping organize the study and Meg Scalia, Lindsay Bartlett, Doug Boyle, and Daniel Crone for their superb research assistance. The authors are grateful for helpful comments received from Margo Bagley, Tom Chen, John Duffy, Dave Fagundes, Dan Gilbert, Wendy Gordon, Paul Heald, Laura Heymann, Andy Johnson-Laird, Kay Kitagawa, Ed Kitch, Oskar Liivak, Orly Lobel, Lydia Loren, Jonathan Masur, Greg Mitchell, Jeff Rachlinski, Matt Sag, Rebecca Tushnet, Alfred Yen, and participants at the Licensing of Intellectual Property Symposium at The University of Chicago Law School, the Intellectual Property Scholars Conference at the UC Berkeley School of Law, and workshops at the UCLA School of Law, the Lewis & Clark Law School, and the University of Michigan Law School.

2
Article
80.1
The Psychology of Contract Precautions
David A. Hoffman
James E. Beasley Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law
Tess Wilkinson-Ryan
Assistant Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School

We thank Jane Baron, Craig Green, Zev Eigen, Yuval Feldman, Bob Hillman, Greg Mandel, Rafael Pardo, Alex Radus, Brishen Rogers, David Zaring, and participants at faculty colloquia at Vanderbilt Law School, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, University of Washington, William & Mary Law School, as well as at the Conference on Empirical Legal Studies for comments on earlier drafts.

2
Article
81.3
Intellectual Property versus Prizes: Reframing the Debate
Benjamin N. Roin
Hieken Assistant Professor of Patent Law, Harvard Law School

Thanks to Lucian Bebchuk, Glenn Cohen, Einer Elhauge, Terry Fisher, John Goldberg, Allison Hoffman, Louis Kaplow, Scott Kieff, Martha Minow, Kevin Outterson, Steven Shavell, and the attendees at the Harvard Law and Economics Workshop, Harvard Health Policy Workshop, Harvard Faculty Workshop, University of Toronto Health Law, Ethics and Policy Seminar, George Washington Law School Conference on Government Innovation, and Michigan Law School Conference on FDA Law & Pharmaceutical Innovation. All errors are my own.

Print
Comment
84.4
Testing for Multisided Platform Effects in Antitrust Market Definition
Patrick R. Ward
JD/PhD (Economics) Candidate, The University of Chicago

The author wishes to thank Professor Randal Picker as well as Mila Rusafova, Emily Samra, and the members of The University of Chicago Law Review for their helpful thoughts and suggestions.

Given myriad business practices and conditions, establishing certain antitrust harms requires context.

Print
Article
84.3
The Unexpected Role of Tax Salience in State Competition for Businesses
Hayes R. Holderness
Assistant Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law; JD, 2011, NYU School of Law; LLM, 2012, NYU School of Law

Many thanks to the faculty of the University of Illinois College of Law for the support and guidance provided to me while drafting this Article as a Visiting Assistant Professor of Law at the College. My particular gratitude belongs to John Colombo, Dhammika Dharmapala, David Gamage, Ari Glogower, Michael Hatfield, Paul Heald, Dick Kaplan, Bob Lawless, Laurie Malman, Arden Rowell, Erin Scharff, Darien Shanske, Jamelle Sharpe, Lesley Wexler, the participants at the 2016 Big Ten Junior Scholars Conference, and the participants at the Washington University Faculty Workshop Series for their time and insights regarding earlier drafts of this Article.

In 2012, Amazon agreed to invest $130 million in building two fulfillment centers and to create 1,500 jobs in New Jersey in exchange for the state relieving Amazon of its sales-tax-collection obligations.