In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Francesco Parisi (University of Minnesota & University of Bologna) discusses his paper "Rewarding Failure" with Gianmarco Torchetti (ETH Zurich).
In their work, Parisi and his co-authors Alice Guerra and Andres Sawicki challenge the one-sided incentive structure of intellectual property law, which rewards only successful innovations while overlooking the social value of failed research. The paper shows how negative results – information about what does not work – can generate significant learning externalities that benefit future research. Yet, under current legal frameworks, these valuable failures often go unshared.
Paper Reference:
Alice Guerra – University of Bologna
Francesco Parisi – University of Minnesota & University of Bologna
Andres Sawicki – University of Miami
Rewarding Failure
University of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper No. 4726758 Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 24-12https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4726758
Audio Credits for Trailer:
AllttA by AllttA
https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Manisha Padi (University of California, Berkeley) discusses her study "The Rise of Nonbanks in Servicing Household Debt" with Karol Rutkowski (ETH Zurich).
In their work, Padi and co-authors study the effects of capital regulation focusing on the case of the market for mortgage servicing rights (MSRs) and the Basel III regulation. Using a theoretical model and U.S. credit registry data, the authors analyze the shift in servicing riskier mortgages from banks towards non-bank servicers triggered by Basel III. Their analysis shows the tension between reducing agency conflicts and enhancing investor welfare on one side, and the borrowers' welfare on the other.
Paper Reference:
The Rise of Nonbanks in Servicing Household Debt
Olin Business School Center for Finance & Accounting Research Paper No. 2023/08 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4550175
Naser Hamdi – Equifax, Inc.
Erica Xuewei Jiang – University of Southern California
Brittany Almquist Lewis – Washington University in Saint Louis & Indiana University
Manisha Padi – University of California, Berkeley
Avantika Pal – Washington University in Saint Louis
Audio Credits for Trailer:
AllttA by AllttA
https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Kevin Cope (University of Virginia) discusses his paper "An Expert-Sourced Measure of Judicial Ideology" with Benjamin Kohler (ETH Zurich).
In his work, Kevin Cope investigates how to measure judicial ideology and how this construct influences legal decisions. He introduces the Jurist-Derived Judicial Ideology Scores (JuDJIS), a new metric based on over 10,000 written evaluations of judges by thousands of jurists collected over three decades.
The paper shows that these ideology estimates outperform existing measures in predicting appellate decisions. This innovative dataset opens up new possibilities for empirical research in judicial politics that were previously constrained by limited data.
Paper Reference:
Kevin Cope – University of Virginia
An Expert-Sourced Measure of Judicial Ideology, Political Analysis (forthcoming)
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4742254
Audio Credits for Trailer:
AllttA by AllttA
https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Jacob Goldin (University of Chicago) discusses his paper "Work Requirements and Child Tax Benefits" with Noah Fehr (ETH Zürich).In his work, Jacob Goldin examines the trade-offs between targeting child tax benefits to the most vulnerable families and preserving incentives to work. Alongside his co-authors, Goldin uses administrative tax data and quasi-random variation in eligibility to estimate the labor supply effects of removing work requirements from child tax credits. The findings suggest that eliminating these requirements leads to negligible reductions in maternal labor force participation, challenging the notion that such provisions are essential for maintaining work incentives.Paper Reference:Jacob Goldin et. alWork Requirements and Child Tax Benefitshttps://www.nber.org/papers/w32343Revised in December 2024Audio Credits for Trailer:AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Daniel Hemel (New York University School of Law) discusses his paper "Law and the New Dynamic Public Finance" with Luca Baltensperger (ETH Zurich).In his work, Prof. Hemel explores how insights from the new dynamic public finance can inform legal policy. This framework challenges conventional wisdom in classical tax theory, offering novel perspectives on taxation, social insurance, and regulatory design. The paper highlights the potential benefits of age-dependent tax schedules, provides fresh justifications for capital taxation, and critiques the structure of retirement savings programs like IRAs and 401(k)s. Paper Reference:Daniel Hemel – New York UniversityLaw and the New Dynamic Public FinanceSSRN Working Paper, March 2025https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5154785Audio Credits for Trailer:AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE vlog series, Raquel De Haro (ETH Zurich) interviews Professor Nick Feamster (University of Chicago) about his studies on compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). Prof. Feamster’s research examines how businesses implement opt-out options for data sharing and explores the use of "dark patterns”. His findings reveal that many websites do not fully comply with CCPA regulations, either by employing tactics that complicate the opt-out process or by failing to provide opt-out options altogether. The discussion further addresses whether the CCPA is emerging as the de facto national privacy standard in the US.
Paper References:
Van Hong Tran, Aarushi Mehrotra, Ranya Sharma, Marshini Chetty, Nick Feamster, Jens Frankenreiter & Lior Strahilevitz
Dark Patterns in the Opt-Out Process and Compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.09222
Van Tran, Aarushi Mehrotra, Marshini Chetty, Nick Feamster, Jens Frankenreiter & Lior Strahilevitz
Measuring Compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act Over Space and Time https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.17225
Audio Credits for Trailer:
AllttA by AllttA
https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Libertad González (Universitat Pompeu Fabrica and Barcelona School of Economics) discusses her paper on the effect of paternity leave on early child development with Claudia Marangon (ETH Zurich).
For their study, Prof. González, Prof. Lídia Farré (IAE-CSIC and BSE), Prof. Claudia Hupkau (CUNEF Universidad and CEP (LSE)), and Prof. Jenifer Ruiz-Valenzuela (UFP, IEB and CEP (LSE)) collected survey data on 5,000 children under the age of six in Spain, and exploited several extensions of paternity leave that took place between 2017 and 2021. Following a differences-in-discontinuities research design, the authors show that four additional weeks of paternity leave led to a significant increase in the fraction of children with developmental delays. The results of the study suggest that paternity leave replaces higher-quality modes of early care. The authors conclude that the impact of parental leave policies on children largely depends on the quality of care provided by parents compared to other childcare options available during that time.
Paper References:
Libertad González – Universitat Pompeu Fabrica & Barcelona School of Economics
Lídia Farré – Institute for Economic Analysis (IAE-CSIC) & Barcelona School of Economics
Claudia Hupkau – CUNEF Universidad & CEP (LSE)
Jenifer Ruiz-Valenzuela – Universitat de Barcelona & IEB & CEP (LSE)
Paternity Leave and Child Development
BSE Working Paper 1455, July 2024
Fines are efficient and widely adopted criminal sanctions due to their low enforcement burdens and the wealth transfer from offenders to society. Among the various fining regimes that have emerged, day fines have been proposed as an optimal way to ensure equality across social classes, yet questions remain about their effectiveness and the fulfilment of their promises in practice. In this episode of the CLE Vlog Series, Alessandro Tacconelli (ETH Zurich) and Prof. Elena Kantorowicz-Reznichenko (Erasmus University Rotterdam) talk about the topic of day fines. Starting from a discussion of her article “Day-Fines: Should the Rich Pay More? – in which she asserts the superiority of day-fine model to other forms of fines – Prof. Kantorowicz-Reznichenko explains some of the main features of those punitive measures, including the quantification of the daily units and their limitations. Her book “Day Fines in Europe,” coedited with Michael Faure (Maastricht University), is recommended to anybody interested to know more about the topic. References: Elena Kantorowicz-Reznichenko – Erasmus University Rotterdam Michael Faure – Maastricht University Day Fines in Europe: Assessing Income-Based Sanctions in Criminal Justice Systems Cambridge University Press (2021) https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108855020 Elena Kantorowicz-Reznichenko – Erasmus University Rotterdam Day Fines in Europe: Should the Rich Pay More Review of Law and Economics 11(3) (2015), 481–501 https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/rle-2014-0045/html Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast series, Prof. Paul Ohm (Georgetown University) and Prof. Filippo Lancieri (Georgetown University, formerly ETH Zurich) discuss Prof. Ohm's study on the pathways for shaping generative AI, with a special focus on fine-tuning. In his study, Prof. Ohm explains the differences between pretraining, fine-tuning, in-context learning, and input and output filtering, highlighting why in particular fine-tuning presents the best mix of cost versus capability for shaping the outputs of generative AI. He also analyzes why fine-tuning is especially well-suited for legal interventions, through a case study on fixing biased models. Finally, Paul Ohm evaluates the market and competition implications of focusing on fine-tuning, such as considerations about the small number of market actors who can afford the costs of the pretraining stage. In this vlog episode, Paul Ohm discusses his study in detail with Filippo Lancieri. Paper References: Paul Ohm – Georgetown University Focusing on Fine-Tuning: Understanding the Four Pathways for Shaping Generative AI Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 25, 214–240 (2024) https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/stlr/article/view/12762/6286 Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast series, Prof. Giorgio Zanarone (HEC Lausanne) and Karol Rutkowski (ETH Zurich) talk about Prof. Zanarone's recent paper "Relationships in the Wild: How Institutions Affect the Governance of Firms".
In their study, Zanarone and his co-authors Gani Aldashev (ULB) and Heikki Rantakari (Rochester) develop a relational contracting model to describe how firms, either privately owned or state owned, perform in the shadow of a ruler. After setting the paper in the context of the Washington consensus and the best practices of governance, Prof. Zanarone gives a summary of the model, shortly outlines its main implications and presents two interesting examples.
Paper References:
Gani Aldashev – Université Libre de Bruxelles
Heikki Rantakari – University of Rochester
Giorgio Zanarone – HEC Lausanne
Relationships in the Wild: How Institutions Affect the Governance of Firms
Aldashev-Rantakari-Zanarone-May-23.pdf (chaire-eppp.org) Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZawLOcbQZ2w
In 1883, the US Supreme Court declared that no one is above the law, emphasizing that all government officials must obey it. This principle, widely accepted in contemporary legal systems, asserts that politicians, like everyone else, should not be immune from prosecution. Unlike for everybody else, though, the decision to prosecute a politician, may be influenced by partisan politics. In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Ian Ayres (Yale Law School) shares insights of the paper “How to Legitimate the Prosecution of Politicians” with Alessandro Tacconelli (ETH Zurich). In their study, Prof. Ayres and co-author Prof. Saikrishna Prakash propose the creation of a Prosecutor Jury—a mechanism designed to ensure politicians’ accountability while preventing politically motivated prosecutions. According to their proposal, when prosecutorial decisions raise partisanship concerns, a super-majority of a politically balanced panel of former U.S. attorneys shall agree on indictment. They recommend the application of this framework to decide whether to prosecute presidential candidates, members of Congress, candidates for federal offices, and federal judges. Paper References: Ian Ayres - Yale University Saikrishna Prakash - University of Virginia How to Legitimate the Prosecution of Politicians
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4544804 Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Luigi Zingales (University of Chicago) discusses the broader topic of "Sharehoder Democracy" with Dr. Philine Widmer (ETH Zurich). References: Eleonora Broccardo – University of Trento Oliver Hart – Harvard University Luigi Zingales – University of Chicago Exit vs. Voice European Corporate Governance Institute – Finance Working Paper No. 694/2020 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3671918# Podcast: Capitalisn't – University of Chicago Podcast Network https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/when-a-few-financial-institutions-control/id1326698855?i=1000647523708
Audio Credits for Trailer:
AllttA by AllttA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE vlog & podcast series, Prof. Kevin Davis (New York University) discusses his study "Did the Global South Have Their Say on EU Supply Chain Regulation?" with Luca Baltensperger (ETH Zurich). Prof. Davis' study (joint with Roy Germano and Lauren E. May from NYU) uses data from the EU’s ‘Have Your Say’ platform to examine how actors from the Global South responded to the European Commission’s formal consultation process on the proposed Corporate Sustainability and Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). Actors from the Global South who participated in the consultation overwhelmingly supported the proposed due diligence framework. The CSDDD is supposed to establish a corporate due diligence standard on sustainability issues, such as environmental concerns, climate change, and human rights, for businesses operating in the EU. However, the findings of Prof. Davis' study call into question the strength of the EU’s commitment to including affected actors from the Global South in regulatory processes. They are consistent with the hypotheses that actors from the South have limited capabilities to participate in formal consultation processes or believe that they lack the power to influence outcomes through those processes. In this vlog episode, Prof. Davis talks about the background of the study, the findings, and its implications. Paper References: Kevin Davis – New York University Roy Germano – New York University Lauren E. May – New York University Did the Global South Have Their Say on EU Supply Chain Regulation? NYU Law and Economics Research Paper No. 24-13 https://ssrn.com/abstract=4735442 Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast series, Amit Zac (University of Amsterdam) and Filippo Lancieri (ETH Zurich) discuss Prof. Zac’s study "The Court Speaks, But Who Listens? Automated Compliance Review of the GDPR", which is an empirical analysis of the mobile applications’ response to the famous European Court of Justice ’Schrems II’ decision in the EU. In July 2020, the European Court of Justice invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield with immediate effect. As a result, many personal data transfers from the European Union to the United States became illegal overnight. Prof. Zac and his co-authors present a unique dataset allowing them not only to observe what firms say about their behavior in privacy policies, but also how firms actually behave. Using machine-learning tools, they analyze the privacy policies of over 7,500 apps on the Spanish Google Play Store and find limited compliance with the Schrems II decision. In this vlog episode, Prof. Zac discusses his study with Dr. Lancieri (ETH Zurich). Paper References: Amit Zac – University of Amsterdam Pablo Wey – ETH Zurich Stefan Bechtold – ETH Zurich David Rodriguez – Polytechnic University of Madrid Jose M. Del Alamo – Polytechnic University of Madrid The Court Speaks, But Who Listens? Automated Compliance Review of the GDPR https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4709913 Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE vlog & podcast series, Prof. Christoph Engel (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods Bonn) and Prof. Stefan Bechtold (ETH Zurich) discuss Engel's recent study on the German Constitutional Court. The latter has powers that are no weaker than the powers of the US Supreme Court. Justices are openly selected by the political parties. Nonetheless, public and professional perception are strikingly different. Justices at the German court are not believed to be guided by the policy preferences of the nominating party. In his paper, Prof. Engel uses the complete publicly available data to investigate whether this perception is well-founded. It exploits three independent sources of quasi-random variation to generate causal evidence. There is no smoking gun of ideological influence. Some specifications show, however, that justices nominated by the left-wing parties (SPD and the Greens) are more activist, even in domains where activism likely runs counter the ideological preferences of these parties. Paper References: Christoph Engel – Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods Bonn The German Constitutional Court – Political, but not Partisan? (Work in Progress) Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE vlog & podcast series, Christopher S. Yoo (University of Pennsylvania) and Christophe Gösken (ETH Zurich) talk about Prof. Yoo's study "An Economic Analysis of the Right to be Forgotten". The so-called “right to be forgotten” has gained prominence under the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and similar regulatory frameworks have recently been introduced in US state privacy statutes.
Commentators have largely defined the right to be forgotten as a clash between the privacy interests of data subjects and the free speech rights of data controllers. However, framing the issues as a clash of individual rights ignores how giving data subjects the ability to render certain information unobservable can give rise to systemic effects that can harm society as a whole. Prof. Yoo's analysis fills this gap by exploring the implications that adverse selection, moral hazard, and the emerging policy intervention know as “ban the box” have on the right to be forgotten. In this vlog episode, Prof. Yoo discusses his study with Christophe Gösken (ETH Zurich). Paper References: Christopher S. Yoo – University of Pennsylvania An Economic Analysis of the Right to Be Forgotten https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4124596 Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
For a long time, scholars have been classifying most legal systems around the world as falling within one of two inherently different categories: common or civil law systems. While the former (common law), rooted in England and practiced also in the US, involves precedent or deference to previously published judicial opinion; the latter (civil law), practiced in continental Europe and elsewhere in the world, does not – or so many still think. In this episode of the CLE vlog series, Prof. Holger Spamann (Harvard Law School) examines the myths and the reality of common and civil law with Alessandro Tacconelli (ETH Zurich). After a brief explanation of the alleged differences between the two systems and the history of such distinction, Prof. Spamann explains the findings of some of his work on the topic. In his paper ‘Judges in the Lab,’ he and his co-authors recruited 299 real judges from seven major jurisdictions to judge an international criminal appeals case and to determine the appropriate prison sentence, to show that: (i) document use and written reasons did not differ between common and civil law judges, and (ii) ‘precedent effect’ was barely detectable. Similarly, in his paper ‘The Reasons Highest Courts Give,’ Prof. Spamann and co-authors quantitatively analysed 80 representative opinions of English and German apex courts in the late 19th century and early 21st century, to find that, even in 1880s, opinions of English and German courts differed in degree rather than kind and that, by the 2000s, the Germans cited precedent as frequently as the English. Paper References: Judges in the Lab: No Precedent Effects, No Common/Civil Law Differences Holger Spamann, Lars Klöhn, Christophe Jamin, Vikramaditya Khanna, John Zhuang Liu, Pavan Mamidi, Alexander Morell, Ivan Reidel Journal of Legal Analysis, Volume 13, Issue 1, 2021, Pages 110–126 https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/laaa008 The Reasons Highest Courts Give: England vs. Germany, 1880-1889 vs. 2007-2016 Jasper Kunstreich, Markus Lieberknecht, Heinrich Nemeczek, Holger Spamann, Stefan Vogenauer Working Paper Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
For years, academic experts have championed the widespread adoption of the “Fama-French” factors in legal settings. Factor models are commonly used to perform valuations, performance evaluation and event studies across a wide variety of contexts, many of which rely on data provided by Professor Kenneth French. Yet these data are beset by a problem that the experts themselves did not understand: Widespread retroactive changes which can materially affect a broad range of estimates. In this episode of the CLE vlog & podcast series, Prof. Adriana Robertson (University of Chicago) discusses the background and findings of the study "Noisy Factors in Law" with Alessandro Tacconnelli (ETH Zurich). In their study, she and her co-authors Mikhail Simutin and Pat Akey (both University of Toronto) show how these retroactive changes, heretofore overlooked by experts, can have enormous impacts in precisely the settings in which experts have pressed for their use. They provide examples of valuations, performance analysis, and event studies in which the retroactive changes have a large—and even dispositive—effect on an expert’s conclusions. Their analysis demonstrates how even the most well accepted expert approaches can be fraught with hidden peril. Paper References: Adriana Robertson - University of Chicago Mikhail Simutin - University of Toronto Pat Akey - University of Toronto Noisy Factors in Law (Please contact the authors for the latest version) Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
Disinformation is proliferating on the internet, and platforms are responding by attaching warnings to content. There is little evidence, however, that these warnings help users identify or avoid disinformation. In this episode of the Center for Law & Economics' vlog & podcast series, Prof. Jonathan Mayer (Princeton) discusses the study "Adapting Security Warnings to Counter Online Disinformation" with Amit Zac (ETH Zurich). In their work, Jonathan Mayer (Princeton) and his co-authors Ben Kaiser, Jerry Wei, Eli Lucherini, Kevin Lee (Princeton), and J. Nathan Matias (Cornell University) adapt methods and results from the information security warning literature in order to design and evaluate effective disinformation warnings. They show a path forward for designing effective warnings, and contribute repeatable methods for evaluating behavioral effects. They also surface a possible dilemma: disinformation warnings might be able to inform users and guide behavior, but the behavioral effects might result from user experience friction, not informed decision making. In this podcast with Amit Zac (ETH Zurich), Jonathan Mayer provides insights into the background of the study and its results. Paper References: Ben Kaiser, Jerry Wei, Eli Lucherini, and Kevin Lee - Princeton University J. Nathan Matias - Cornell University Jonathan Mayer - Princeton University Adapting Security Warnings to Counter Online Disinformation Usenix Security (2021) https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity21/presentation/kaiser
Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA
In this episode of the CLE's vlog & podcast series, Prof. Henry E. Smith (Harvard) discusses his essays "Putting the Equity Back into Intellectual Property Remedies" and "Equity as Meta-Law" with Christophe Gösken (ETH Zurich). In his articles, Henry Smith argues that equity and related parts of the law solve complex and uncertain problems — including interdependent behavior and misuses of legal rules by opportunists — and do so in a characteristic fashion: as meta-law.
These problems are rife in intellectual property settings. An attention to meta-law can focus on potential two-sided opportunism in scenarios of possible injunctions, and a more traditional equitable framework can help frame when presumptions for injunctions are appropriate and when they should be overcome. As a result, equity as meta-law could avoid flattening the law of intellectual property remedies.
Paper References:
Henry E. Smith - Harvard University
Putting the Equity Back into Intellectual Property Remedies
Notre Dame Law Review, 96(4), 1603–1622 (2021)
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol96/iss4/12
Henry E. Smith - Harvard University
Equity as Meta-Law
The Yale Law Journal, 130(5), 1050–1287 (2021)
https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/equity-as-meta-law
Audio Credits for Trailer:
AllttA by AllttA
https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
