Three essays in law and economics

The first chapter presents a model of legal interpretation in a hierarchical court. Using a two-level court in which judges have spatial preferences over doctrine, the model examines how appeals, panels, and other structural features of the court affect the incentives of judges and promote uniform interpretation of the laws. The threat of appeal has a moderating influence on judges in the lower court. When the cost of appeal is low, this effect will be stronger, but the lower court will also have less influence on the final decision. Hence, under many conditions, overall uniformity will be maximized at an intermediate cost of review. Factors that may increase the predictability of rulings on the higher court, such as panel size, may weaken the incentives toward moderation on the lower court. The second chapter analyzes judicial decision making in three-judge appellate panels. When judges are ideological but have a preference for consensus, there will be negotiation among the three judges in an effort to reach agreement. This paper constructs a model of judicial negotiation, where judges have preferences on an ideological spectrum and disutility from disagreement.

Department dc:contributor.department

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Economics.

Grantor dc:publisher

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Year dc:date.issued

2006

Author dc:creator

• Fischman, Joshua B

Advisor dc:contributor.advisor

• Glenn Ellison.

• Economics.

Statement dc:rights

• M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.

Licence dc:rights.uri

• http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582

Language dc:language.iso

eng

Handle dc:identifier.uri

http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/37411

OAI identifier oai:identifier

oai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/37411