Judges Avoid Ex Post but Not Ex Ante Inefficiency

doi:10.1017/9781108694469.007

6 - Judges Avoid Ex Post but Not Ex Ante Inefficiency

Theory and Empirical Evidence from Taiwan

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 December 2019

Yun-chien Chang

Edited by

Yun-chien Chang

Show author details

Yun-chien Chang: Affiliation:
Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This book chapter advances a hypothesis that judges tend to avoid ex post inefficiency (that is, inefficiency falling to litigants), but judges are less inclined to avoid ex ante inefficiency (that is, inefficiency incurred by future parties). Drawing on three empirical studies which the author has conducted on property cases rendered by courts in Taiwan, this chapter presents preliminary evidence to test this hypothesis. The three studies are consistent with the hypothesis, as judges avoid ex post inefficiency in two studies (co-ownership partition and building encroachment) but fail to avoid ex ante inefficiency in one study (trespass to land).

Keywords

Ex post inefficiency building encroachment co-ownership partition trespass unjust enrichment ex ante inefficiency anticommons equity allocative efficiency judicial behaviors

Type: Chapter
Information: Selection and Decision in Judicial Process around the World
Empirical Inquires
, pp. 160 - 178

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108694469.007 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References in English

Bebchuk, Lucian Arye. 2001. Property Rights and Liability Rules: The Ex Ante View of the Cathedral. Michigan Law Review 100: 601–39.Google Scholar

Brooks, Richard R. W., and Schwartz, Warren F.. 2005. Legal Uncertainty, Economic Efficiency, and the Preliminary Injunction Doctrine. Stanford Law Review 58: 381–410.Google Scholar

Chang, Yun-chien. 2011. An Empirical Study of Court-Adjudicated Takings Compensation in New York City: 1990–2003. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 8(2): 384–412.Google Scholar

Chang, Yun-chien. 2012. Tenancy in “Anticommons”? A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Co-ownership. Journal of Legal Analysis 4: 515–53.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chang, Yun-chien. 2014. To Tear Down or Not to Tear Down? An Empirical Study of Boundary Encroachment Cases in Taiwan. Pp. 144–58 in Empirical Legal Analysis: Assessing the Performance of Legal Institutions, edited by Chang, Yun-chien. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Chang, Yun-chien. 2015. Optional Law in Property: Theoretical Critiques. NYU Journal of Law and Liberty 9 (2): 459–512.Google Scholar

Chang, Yun-chien. 2016. Hybrid Rule: Hidden Entitlement Protection Rule in Access to Landlocked Land Doctrine. Tulane Law Review 88: 217–57.Google Scholar

Chang, Yun-chien. 2017. Eminent Domain Law in Taiwan: New Law, Old Practice? Pp. 93–117 in Eminent Domain: A Comparative Perspective, edited by Kim, Iljoong, Lee, Hojun and Somin, Ilya. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chang, Yun-chien, and Lin, Chang-ching. 2017. Do Parties Negotiate after Trespass Litigation: An Empirical Study of Coasean Bargaining. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2805063 (accessed July 9, 2019).Google Scholar

Chang, Yun-chien, and Smith, Henry E.. 2012. An Economic Analysis of Civil versus Common Law Property. Notre Dame Law Review 88(1): 1–55.Google Scholar

Chang, Yun-chien, and Smith, Henry E.. 2016. Structure and Style in Comparative Property Law. Pp. 131–60 in Research Handbook on Comparative Law and Economics, edited by Eisenberg, Theodore and Ramello, Giovanni B.. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Chang, Yun-chien, Chen, Kong-Pin, and Lin, Chang-ching. 2017. Anchoring Effect in Real Litigations. Working Paper.Google Scholar

Chang, Yun-Chien, Chen, Kong-Pin, and Liu, Yu-Sheng. 2016. Unlawful Possession of Land and Unjust Enrichment Equivalent to Rent: Empirical Analysis and Policy Suggestions [in Chinese]. Chengchi Law Review (144): 81–153.Google Scholar

Chang, Yun-chien, and Fennell, Lee Anne. 2014a. Appendices to Partition and Revelation. The University of Chicago Law Review Dialogue 81(1): 1–13.Google Scholar

Chang, Yun-chien, and Fennell, Lee Anne. 2014b. Partition and Revelation. The University of Chicago Law Review 81 (1): 27–51.Google Scholar

Coase, Ronald H. 1959. The Federal Communications Commission. Journal of Law and Economics 2: 1–40.CrossRef Google Scholar

Coase, Ronald H. 1960. The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law & Economics 3: 1–69.Google Scholar

Dannemann, Gerhard. 2009. The German Law of Unjustified Enrichment and Restitution: A Comparative Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Demsetz, Harold. 2011. The Problem of Social Cost: What Problem? A Critique of the Reasoning of A.C. Pigou and R.H. Coase. Review of Law & Economics 7: 1–13.Google Scholar

Epstein, Lee, Landes, William M., and Posner, Richard A.. 2013. The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Epstein, Richard A. 1997. A Clear View of the Cathedral: The Dominance of Property Rules. Yale Law Journal 106: 2091–120.CrossRef Google Scholar

Epstein, Richard A. 1998. Protecting Property Rights with Legal Remedies: A Common Sense Reply to Professor Ayres. Valparaiso University Law Review 32: 833–53.Google Scholar

Farnsworth, Ward. 1999. Do Parties to Nuisance Cases Bargain after Judgment? A Glimpse Inside the Cathedral. The University of Chicago Law Review 66(2): 373–436.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fennell, Lee Anne. 2011. Commons, Anticommons, Semicommons. Pp. 35–56 in Research Handbook on the Economics of Property Law, edited by Smith, Henry E.. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Fennell, Lee Anne. 2013. The Problem of Resource Access. Harvard Law Review 126(6): 1471–531.Google Scholar

Fon, Vincy, Parisi, Francesco, and Depoorter, Ben. 2005. Litigation, Judicial Path-Dependence, and Legal Change. European Journal of Law and Economics 20(1): 43–56.CrossRef Google Scholar

Garoupa, Nuno, and Ligüerre, Carlos Gómez. 2011. The Syndrome of the Efficiency of the Common Law. Boston University International Law Journal 29: 287–335.Google Scholar

Heller, Michael A. 1998. The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets. Harvard Law Review 111(3): 621–88.CrossRef Google Scholar

Krebs, Thomas. 2004. Unrequested Benefits in German Law. Pp. 247–62 in Understanding Unjust Enrichment, edited by Neyers, Jason W., McInnes, Mitchell and Pitel, Stephen G. A.. Portland, OR: Hart.Google Scholar

Krier, James E., and Schwab, Stewart J.. 1995. Property Rules and Liability Rules: The Cathedral in Another Light. New York University Law Review 70: 440–83.Google Scholar

Lewinsohn-Zamir, Daphna. 2001. The Choice between Property Rules and Liability Rules Revisited: Critical Observations from Behavioral Studies. Texas Law Review 80: 219–60.Google Scholar

Merrill, Thomas W., and Smith, Henry E.. 2012. Property: Principles and Policies. 2nd ed. New York: Foundation Press.Google Scholar

Miceli, Thomas J., and Sirmans, C.F.. 2000. Partition of Real Estate; or, Breaking Up Is (Not) Hard to Do. Journal of Legal Studies 29: 783–796.CrossRef Google Scholar

Niblett, Anthony, Posner, Richard A., and Shleifer, Andrei. 2010. The Evolution of a Legal Rule. The Journal of Legal Studies 39(2): 325–58.Google Scholar

Parchomovsky, Gideon, and Stein, Alex. 2009. Reconceptualizing Trespass. Northwestern University Law Review 103: 1823–62.Google Scholar

Parisi, Francesco. 2004. The Efficiency of the Common Law Hypothesis. Pp. 519–22 in The Encyclopedia of Public Choice, edited by Rowley, Charles K. and Schneider, Friedrich, New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Ponzetto, Giacomo A. M., and Fernandez, Patricio A.. 2008. Case Law versus Statute Law: An Evolutionary Comparison. Journal of Legal Studies 37: 379–430.CrossRef Google Scholar

Posner, Richard A. 1973. Economic Analysis of Law. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar

Posner, Richard A. 2011. Economic Analysis of Law. 8th ed. New York: Aspen.Google Scholar

Priest, George L. 1977. The Common Law Process and the Selection of Efficient Rules. The Journal of Legal Studies 6: 65–82.Google Scholar

Ramseyer, J. Mark. 2015. Second-Best Justice: The Virtues of Japanese Private Law. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rizzolli, Matteo. 2009. Building Encroachments. Review of Law and Economics 5: 661–93.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rubin, Paul H. 1977. Why Is the Common Law Efficient? The Journal of Legal Studies 6(1): 51–63.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rubin, Paul H. 1982. Common Law and Statute Law. Journal of Legal Studies 11: 205–24.Google Scholar

Smith, Henry E. 2002. Exclusion versus Governance: Two Strategies for Delineating Property Rights. Journal of Legal Studies 31: S453–S87.Google Scholar

Smith, Henry E. 2004. Property and Property Rules. New York University Law Review 79: 1719–98.Google Scholar

Smith, Henry E. 2009. Law and Economics: Realism or Democracy? Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 32: 127–45.Google Scholar

Zywicki, Todd J., and Stringham, Edward Peter. 2010. Common Law and Economic Efficiency, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=1673968 (accessed July 9, 2019).Google Scholar

References in German

Buck-Heeb, Petra. 2011. Ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung - Unerlaubte Handlungen. In Erman Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch 3485–576. Edited by Westermann, Harm Peter. 13 ed. Köln: Dr. Otto Schmidt.Google Scholar

Sprau, Hartwig. 2013. Werkvertrag und ähnlich Verträge - Unerlaubte Handlugen. In Palandt Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch 967–1438. Edited by Palandt, Otto. 72 ed. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar