Posted by Social Science Research Network
Endogenous Deterrence Costs Alex Parkinson (Boies, Schiller, and Flexner LLP)
Abstract: There is an optimal rate at which actors that indisputably break the law will be detected, prosecuted, and punished. Legal regimes optimize deterrence by calibrating three inputs: the probability of detection, the rate of prosecution, and the magnitude of punishment. Optimal-law-enforcement literature casts these three inputs as static, exogenously controlled variables, each of which is capable of being carefully manipulated — even titrated — independent of the others. This Article problematizes the singular hegemony of this traditional account. Contra extant optimal-law enforcement literature, the three foregoing deterrence inputs can (and often do) exert endogenous pressures on one another. To advance this thesis, I present a stylized account of endogenous deterrence regimes. These regimes principally manifest when legal regimes cycle the magnitude-of-punishment input for a violation of a given law into the probability-of-detection input for that same law. Texture is added to this stylized account by drawing on several examples of endogenous deterrence regimes in both private and public law. This Article’s second-order contention is that these endogenous deterrence regimes can generate considerable costs. Specifically, endogenous deterrence regimes produce systematic deterrence failures, exact an independent social-welfare loss, and allow unelected, unaccountable actors to inflict agency costs by altering legal regimes absent any oversight, “making law” and extracting rents in the process. While effects these are not inevitable — endogenous deterrence regimes can also be deployed as neat institutional-design features that yield considerable gains — they are likely in the status quo. Endogenous deterrence regimes are systematically more likely to prove costly merely by virtue of the fact that so little attention has been drawn to their existence and effects.
Featured News
CVS Health Explores Potential Breakup Amid Investor Pressure: Report
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
DirecTV Acquires Dish TV, Creating 20 Million-Subscriber Powerhouse
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea Fines Kakao Mobility $54.8 Million for Anti-Competitive Practices
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Google Offers Settlement in India’s Antitrust Case Regarding Smart TVs
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Attorney Challenges NCAA’s $2.78 Billion Settlement in Landmark Antitrust Cases
Oct 3, 2024 by
nhoch@pymnts.com
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh