cssi/SciSciGPT-SciSciNet huggingface dataset:
Asserting Permanent Sovereignty over Ancestral Lands: The Bakweri Land Litigation against Cameroon

The Article focuses on the recently concluded Bakweri land case against Cameroon in the Mrican Human Rights Commission. The Article uses this litigation as the basis for a re-examination of a host of issues relating to the enforcement of human rights, especially land rights, in postcolonial countries making the slow transition from single-party authoritarian rule to mUlti-party democratic states. More importantly, it takes a fresh look at the exhaustion of local remedies rule. It asks the relatively simple question: whether an indigenous people seeking to reclaim and assert permanent sovereignty over ancestral lands, forcibly expropriated * Professor of Law, S.M.U. Dedman School of Law and of the Supreme Court of Cameroon, Barrister-at-Law; Ph.D., Northwestern University Graduate School (1974); J.D., Northwestern University School of Law (1984). Grateful acknowledgement is expressed to the School of Law and Dean John Attanasio for assistance which enabled this paper to be prepared; to Dibussi Tande for valuable research assistance, and to Mola Njoh Litumbe and Mola Mbua Mofoke ("Monsie"), respectively, Secretary General and Technical Adviser of the Bakweri Land Claims Committee for their unflagging support and encouragement throughout this litigation. In July 1994, the author was designated Counsel for the Bakweri by the Assembly of Traditional Rulers, Notables and Elites, and has held brief for this group in all the international tribunals including the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, where this matter was heard. To the Bakweri people who designated the writer to hold brief for them, sincere gratitude to them and profound respect for their indomitable spirit, their stoic resistance to German colonial rule and the ruthless spoliation of their ancestral land, and their stubborn determination to take back what has always been theirs through peaceful, nonviolent legal means. Their struggle remains one of the most inspiring and compelling stories of our time. The responsibility for the contents of this paper is the author's alone.
How to Make Finance Scholarship More Creative and Equitable: An Author's Suggestions to Editors and Referees *

Editing high-quality finance journals is challenging, and it also requires careful thought on the optimal governance processes required to ensure equity, particularly given the large number of submissions to these journals. Enhancing and maintaining incentives for authors to be creative is also important. In this paper, I discuss issues arising from subjectivity in referees’ reports in finance journals and present a list of editorial suggestions that might improve authors’ experiences and enhance the quality of submissions to these journals.
Cross-Validation of Customer and Employee Signals and Firm Valuation

AbstractPrevious studies have shown that a firm needs to rely on its customers and employees to achieve superior performance. In this study, the authors draw on signaling theory to develop and empirically test a cross-validation argument. They argue that how a firm treats one stakeholder group will be interpreted by investors in conjunction with how the firm treats another stakeholder group. Investors use consistency in stakeholder group treatment as a signal of complementarity in a firm’s investments, which can improve the likelihood of competitive advantage. Specifically, the authors propose that a firm’s achievements (lapses) directed at customers have a stronger positive (negative) impact on investors’ valuation of the firm if they are validated by the firm’s achievements (lapses) directed at employees, and vice versa. Applying a multilevel model to a large sample of firms across various industries between 1994 and 2010, the authors find evidence to support these arguments. In addition, they find that...
Is Restorative Justice Compatible with Sentencing Uniformity

Restorative justice (RJ) procedures offer an alternative to conventional criminal justice procedures. RJ emphasizes dialogue between criminal offenders and their victims, consensual conflict resolution, and the repairing of harm. RJ skeptics, however, frequently argue that RJ procedures undermine uniformity in sentencing. This Article considers the merits of these claims, concluding that RJ is compatible with some versions of uniformity, but not with others. While uniformity, as a sentencing ideal, has many supporters, uniformity means quite different things to different people. In particular, the Article contrasts "static" and "dynamic" "ersions of uniformity. The static approaches rely on sentencing factors that are external and antecedent to the processes of the criminal justice system. The dynamic approaches, by contrast, permit consideration of the interactions between offenders, victims, and criminal justice professionals within the system. The Article demonstrates that the dynamic paradigms are more compatible with RJ than the static. The Article also suggests some reasons to view the static paradigms (which pose relatively greater difficulties for RJ) with skepticism.
Does the bonding effect matter in a more integrated capital market world

Abstract This paper examines the bonding effect of cross-listing before and after the stock market liberalization reforms in China. Consistent with the bonding hypothesis, we find that Chinese firms with foreign listings attain higher valuations than firms without foreign listings. We also find that they manage earnings less than comparable purely domestic-listed firms and have more informative stock prices. Further investigation indicates that the divergence in earnings quality between cross-listed and non–cross-listed firms shrinks dramatically after the Chinese stock market liberalization reforms in 2001 and 2002. Overall, the results suggest that the bonding effect is mitigated in an increasingly integrated capital market world.
Liquidity and Risk Management

This paper provides a model of the interaction between risk-management practices and market liquidity. On one hand, tighter risk management reduces the maximum position an institution can take, thus the amount of liquidity it can offer to the market. On the other hand, risk managers can take into account that lower liquidity amplifies the effective risk of a position by lengthening the time it takes to sell it. The main result of the paper is that a feedback effect can arise: tighter risk management reduces liquidity, which in turn leads to tighter risk management, etc. This can help explain sudden drops in liquidity and, since liquidity is priced, in prices in connection with increased volatility or decreased risk-bearing capacity.
More Uncertainty about the Unit Root in U.S. Real GNP

Abstract The new KPSS test is used to test the null hypothesis that U.S. real GNP is a trend stationary process. When appropriately sized, the test fails to reject the trend stationary null. This provides an important counter-example to the generic inability to reject the difference stationary null hypothesis for output by classical hypothesis testing. The evidence in favor of the trend stationary representation is weakened, however, by showing that such size correction dramatically reduces power. Reversing the null and alternative hypotheses, this paper complements Rudebusch’s (1993) recent analysis.
Rethinking Personal Jurisdiction

This article sets out a pragmatic justification for the main features of current personal jurisdiction doctrine: personal jurisdiction rules minimize litigation costs and bias. This approach helps resolve difficult and open jurisdictional issues, such as the scope of general jurisdiction and the validity of jurisdiction based on the stream of commerce theory. This article then explores the empirical assumptions underlying this pragmatic explanation for current doctrine and shows how the law should change if those assumptions were incorrect. For example, if the danger of bias against out-of-state litigants is low, the “purposeful availment” requirement lacks justification and plaintiffs should be allowed to sue in their home states. 1. I NTRODUCTION American Personal jurisdiction law is generally considered to be in disarray. For over half a century, the Supreme Court has approached personal jurisdiction questions by analyzing the defendant’s “minimum contacts” and by asking whether the defendant “purposefully availed” itself of the benefits of the forum. As academic commentators have pointed out, these tests are supported neither by constitutional text nor by history nor by persuasive policy considerations. This article attempts to reorient personal jurisdiction through a thoroughly pragmatic analysis of the consequences of jurisdictional rules. In particular, it argues that personal jurisdiction affects welfare through its effects
What Feminists Have to Lose in Same-Sex Marriage Litigation

This Article highlights both the rewards in accepting and the risks in rejecting a claim of sex discrimination as one constitutional basis for invalidating restrictions on marriage for same-sex couples. It argues that recognition of same-sex marriage and elimination of enforced sex roles are as inextricably intertwined as the duck is with the rabbit in the famous optical illusion. As the Article demonstrates, this has long been clear to opponents, from the pope to David Blankenhorn, but needs to become as clear to proponents and to judges deciding same-sex marriage cases if we are to preserve and extend the liberty and equality of all regardless of sex or orientation. The Article begins by suggesting some advantages of thin over thick definitions of both sex and marriage in law. Through a review, first of landmark U.S. Supreme Court sex discrimination cases concerning the law of marriage and then of state constitutional same-sex marriage litigation from the 1970s to the present, it goes on to demonstrate, on the bright side, that opening marriage to same-sex couples would eliminate the last vestige of sex stereotyping from the law of marriage and complete the law’s evolution away from legally enforced sex-role differentiated inegalitarian marriage, with a resulting benefit to persons of all orientations. On the dark side, however, it also demonstrates that to insist, as some state judges have done, that denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples does not discriminate on the basis of sex because neither the class of women nor the class of men is singled out for disadvantageous treatment is a repudiation, not only of the entire body of U.S. Supreme Court sex discrimination law of the last forty years, but of more general fundamental principles of U.S. equal protection law established for a century. Even more ominously, some state judges have justified the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage by relying on exactly the sort of “fixed notions concerning the roles and abilities of males and females” settled understandings of federal constitutional sex equality mandate they repudiate. Not only gays and lesbians, but heterosexual women from a feminist perspective are the losers when marriage is (p)reserved for heterosexual couples because of and not in spite of its traditions, traditions that include sex-role differentiation and female subordination. The Article ends with an examination of the many opportunities Ted Olson and David Boies missed to highlight the sex discrimination argument in the trial of Perry v. Schwarzenegger and with some speculation as to why the two have so far failed to make the strong case they could have in support of the proposition that denial of marriage to same-sex couples is unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of sex.
Sailing in rough water: market volatility and corporate finance

Abstract This paper examines how market volatility affects corporate financing transactions. Firms face substantial uncertainty with respect to the price, demand, and after-market costs associated with raising public capital. The ability to effectively hedge this risk is critical to the efficient financing of firm capital needs. Using monthly US equity-related financing transactions from 1970 to 1998, I find that market volatility dampens financing transactions, particularly among small or unseasoned firms. Periods of above normal market volatility are associated with a significant 13% decline in the frequency of initial public offering (IPO) transactions and a 21% decline in the number of IPO dollars raised. Increased market volatility generates greater underwriting fees but does not affect IPO underpricing. The findings are most consistent with Mandelker and Raviv's [J. Finance 32 (1977) 683] model of costly distribution risk bearing.
The Totality of the Circumstances of the Debtor's Financial Situation in a Post-Means Test World: Trying to Bridge the Wedoff/Culhane & White Divide

Many provisions of the new bankruptcy amendments have vexed practitioners, judges, and scholars alike. One specific troublemaker is new section 707(b)(3), which accords judges discretionary grounds to dismiss the petitions of abusive debtors. Its Clause (B) contains the catch-all ground known well to balancing fans; dismissal is allowed for abuse upon considering the totality of the circumstances. Commentators quickly divided into two camps in scrutinizing this provision. The first (exemplified by Bankruptcy Judge Eugene Wedoff) believes that Clause (B) is a wide grant of power, especially for debtors who skate by the letter if perhaps not the spirit of the means test. The second (exemplified by Professors Marianne Culhane & Michaela White) believes that judges should only dismiss for pseudo-bad faith because All Things Financial are covered by the means test. Trying to find middle ground, this brief article attempts to irritate both sides equally by suggesting a third course to make sense of Congress' statutory gibberish: allowing scrutiny of the debtor's assets (including exempt ones) but not the debtor's income. Such an approach, among other virtues, avoids a confiscatory economic punishment of frugal debtors that Congress surely did not intend.
Do no-loan policies change the matriculation patterns of low income students?

Abstract We examine whether there is discernable variation in the matriculation patterns of low-income students at public flagship institutions around changes in institutional financial-aid policies that target resident, low-income students with need-based aid. Overall, our results suggests that need is not being met on the extensive margin and that enrollment levels actually fall with the introduction of targeted aid. However, the enrollments of more-needy students tend to fall less and students matriculating to aid-innovating institutions tend to have more financial need after the introduction of income-targeted aid. This suggests that along the intensive margin income-targeted aid may still be benefiting the most needy. We also find that institutions that introduce income-targeted aid subsequently enroll more-geographically distant students, suggestive of improved matching.
Making Room for Critical Race Theory in International Law: Some Practical Pointers

In addition to assessing the pertinence of critical race theory in unmasking international law's colonial, racist and patriarchal underpinnings, this paper attempts to suggest practical ways in which a critical race theory approach can enrich the international legal system, by giving a voice to the voiceless and by addressing the conditions of marginality in which much of the developing world is trapped. This paper will do three things. First, it will peruse the contemporary global situation with respect to international law and human rights. Second, it will assess the contribution of critical race theory in advancing an understanding of, and solution to, America's predicament of race. Third, it will suggest ways in which these approaches may engage with contemporary attempts to deal with the human rights endeavor globally.
Variations of Institutional Design for Empowered Deliberation

This paper lays out the practical and theoretical characteristics of formally empowered deliberation as a distinctive subset of deliberative processes. As part of a recent broad shift toward a more deliberative conception of democratic politics, participatory deliberative processes increasingly have been formally empowered as part of democratic governance. Governments have moved to delegate authority and deliberative responsibility from elite bodies to lay publics more quickly than scholars have been able to fully identify the implications of this institutionalization for the quality of both deliberation and democracy. This paper describes the emerging characteristics of formally empowered deliberation as a distinctive subset of deliberative processes, in which deliberation between members of the general public is given credible formal authority over policy development and decision making. We first develop a clearer conceptualization of empowered deliberation within the general trend toward participatory governance. We also review critical and supportive perspectives on empowered deliberation, making explicit tradeoffs inherent in the decision to develop an empowered deliberative process. Next, we identify four key dimensions of variation in the design of empowered deliberative institutions, in particular embeddedness in the social/ political context and the scope of authority of the deliberative decision. To illustrate these dimensions, we discuss key cases from around the world, noting which forms of empowered deliberation have seen less common innovation and documentation. Finally, we briefly consider how specific processes may become empowered or transform over time, as they transition from experimental or one-off pilot projects to recurring and institutionalized aspects of democratic governance.
Dystopian Travels in Gringolandia Engendering Ethnicity Among Mexican Migrants to the United States

This article examines the correlation between migration to the United States from Mexico, ethnicity, and changing gender relations among Mexicans on both sides of the international border. For exam...
Regulation of Companies with Publicly Listed Share Capital in the People's Republic of China

Text of a speech given to the October 10-12, 2004 "International Symposium on Amendment of the PRC Company Law", Shanghai, prior to the late 2005 amendment of the Chinese Company Law. The speech addresses the ways in which the special characteristics of China's Reform-era political economy and its public companies require specific legal and regulatory structures to help in assuring better corporate governance and more attractive capital markets.
A Natural Experiment on the ‘Race to the Bottom’ Hypothesis: Testing for Stochastic Dominance in Temporal Pollution Trends*

Devolution of tasks to local levels of government has recently become a popular agenda item within certain political factions in the US. While one expects the local policymaker to tailor policies to match the preferences of his constituents, critics of local policymaking claim that externalities are ignored and inefficiencies thus arise under local control of certain policies. A primary example concerns the control of pollution, which is known to have adverse effects on neighbouring jurisdictions. Whether localities actually ‘race to the bottom’ and enact lax environmental policies when given the chance remains an open issue. In this study, we make use of stochastic dominance tests to examine if President Reagan's policy of ‘New Federalism’ in the early 1980s induced states to lower environmental standards. Among the several environmental measures analysed, we do not find any evidence that the ‘race to the bottom’ materialized. Indeed, the evidence shows that even during these lean years of federal intervention several indicators of environmental quality at the state level continued to improve.
Law, Politics, and Access to Essential Medicines in Developing Countries:

This article argues that to advance the struggle for access to essential medicines, it is necessary to identify the global and local regimes that shape the rules that give impetus to particular policy options, while undermining others. In exploring the role of law and politics in this process, the author first outlines the globalization of a standardized, corporate-inspired, intellectual property regime. Second, the author uses the example of the HIV/AIDS pandemic to demonstrate how the stability of this new regime came under pressure, both locally and globally. Finally, it is argued that while the global HIV/AIDS pandemic and the social movements that emerged in response to government inaction have effectively challenged the TRIPS regime, this complex contestation has reached an unsustainable stalemate in which development aid, corporate, and non-governmental philanthropy is simultaneously providing increased availability to drugs while precluding a more lasting solution to the crisis of access to essent...
Personalizing Default Rules and Disclosure with Big Data

This paper provides the first comprehensive account of personalized default rules and personalized disclosure in the law. Under a personalized approach to default rules, individuals are assigned default terms in contracts or wills that are tailored to their own personalities, characteristics, and past behaviors. Similarly, disclosures by firms or the state can be tailored so that only information likely to be relevant to an individual is disclosed, and information likely to be irrelevant to her is omitted. The paper explains how the rise of Big Data makes the effective personalization of default rules and disclosure far easier than it would have been during earlier eras. The paper then shows how personalization might improve existing approaches to the law of consumer contracts, medical malpractice, inheritance, landlord-tenant relations, and labor law. The paper makes several contributions to the literature. First, it shows how data mining can be used to identify particular personality traits in individuals, and these traits may in turn predict preferences for particular packages of legal rights. Second, it proposes a regime whereby a subset of the population (“guinea pigs”) is given a lot of information about various contractual terms and plenty of time to evaluate their desirability, with the choices of particular guinea pigs becoming the default choices for those members of the general public who have similar personalities, demographic characteristics, and patterns of observed behavior. Third, we assess a lengthy list of drawbacks to the personalization of default rules and disclosure, including cross-subsidization, strategic behavior, uncertainty, stereotyping, privacy, and institutional competence concerns. Finally, we explain that the most trenchant critiques of the disclosure strategy for addressing social ills are really criticisms of impersonal disclosure. Personalized disclosure not only offers the potential to cure the ills associated with impersonal disclosure strategies, but it can also ameliorate many of the problems associated with the use of personalized default rules. * Alain Poher Professor of Law, Tel Aviv University, and Fischel-Neil Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law, University of Chicago. ** Sidley Austin Professor of Law, University of Chicago. The authors thank Michael Abramowicz, Omri Ben-Shahar, Tony Casey, Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci, Lee Fennell, Todd Henderson, Aziz Huq, Saul Levmore, Jonathan Masur, Eric Posner, Adam Samaha, and Cass Sunstein, as well as workshop participants at the University of Chicago for helpful conversations and comments, and Julian Dibbell and Omer Yehezkel for inspired research
Respect for Human Rights has Improved Over Time: Modeling the Changing Standard of Accountability

According to indicators of political repression currently used by scholars, human rights practices have not improved over the past 35 years, despite the spread of human rights norms, better monitoring, and the increasing prevalence of electoral democracy. I argue that this empirical pattern is not an indication of stagnating human rights practices. Instead, it reflects a systematic change in the way monitors, like Amnesty International and the U.S. State Department, encounter and interpret information about abuses. The standard of accountability used to assess state behaviors becomes more stringent as monitors look harder for abuse, look in more places for abuse, and classify more acts as abuse. In this article, I present a new, theoretically informed measurement model, which generates unbiased estimates of repression using existing data. I then show that respect for human rights has improved over time and that the relationship between human rights respect and ratification of the UN Convention Against Torture is positive, which contradicts findings from existing research.
Mind the Gap: Basic Health Along the ACA’s Coverage Continuum

As ACA implementation proceeds, expansion states should mind the gap — the gap between Medicaid and Marketplace. In this transition between insurance platforms, people can stumble. As a bridge between expanded Medicaid and the insurance Marketplaces, the ACA allows states to enact a Basic Health Program (BHP) supported by federal funds. The BHP option, which has been delayed until 2015, aims to reduce insurance costs and increase care continuity for low-income individuals and families.Interested states face a complicated calculus, one with significant unknowns and moving parts. In this article, I first place this new insurance affordability program in the context of comprehensive health reform efforts. I then explain key issues in a state’s BHP decision-making, and go on to consider related, evolving coverage options. Ultimately, whether a state adopts the BHP or not, it ought to mind the gap between Medicaid and Marketplace. In this transition between insurance platforms, central ACA goals of affordability and continuity will be tested.
Estimation of Social-Influence-Dependent Peer Pressures in a Large Network Game

Research on peer effects in sociology has been focused for long on social influence power to investigate the social foundations for social interactions. This paper extends Xu (forthcoming)’s large–network–based game model by allowing for social–influence–dependent peer effects. In a large network, we use the Katz–Bonacich centrality to measure individuals’ social influences. To solve the computational burden when the data come from the equilibrium of a large network, we extend Aguirregabiria and Mira (2007)’s nested pseudo likelihood estimation (NPLE) approach to our large network game model. Using the Add Health dataset, we investigate peer effects on conducting dangerous behaviors of high school students. Our results show that peer effects are statistically significant and positive. Moreover, a student benefits more (statistically significant at the 5% level) from her conformity, or equivalently, pays more for her disobedience, in terms of peer pressures, if friends have higher social-influence status.
How does pricing power affect a firm’s sourcing decisions from unreliable suppliers?

We study sourcing decisions of price-setting and price-taking firms with two unreliable suppliers, where a price-setting firm sets the retail price after the supply uncertainty is resolved and a price-taking firm takes the retail price as given. We investigate the impacts of market conditions, suppliers’ wholesale prices and their reliabilities on the optimal sourcing decisions of price-setting and price-taking firms, and examine how a firm’s pricing power affects these impacts. We define a supplier’s reliability in terms of the “size” or the “variability” of his random capacity using the concepts of stochastic dominance. We find that the supplier reliability affects the optimal sourcing decisions differently for price-setting and price-taking firms. Specifically, with a price-setting firm, a supplier can win a larger order by increasing his reliability, it is not always so with a price-taking firm.
Quotas and the Transatlantic Divergence of Corporate Governance

The French adoption of a corporate board quota for women reflects Europe’s increasingly stakeholder-oriented approach to corporate governance, one that stands in marked contrast with that of the United States. This Article discusses how the corporate board quota will shift French and European corporate governance. The change accentuates an already established stakeholder corporate culture widespread in Europe, most notably evidenced by the presence of worker representation on boards. In contrast, the United States’ corporate governance structure increasingly places the shareholder at its center. The proliferation of quotas for women on corporate boards in the national and transnational European contexts is a factor that will further distinguish European corporate governance regimes from those of the United States. France’s extensive history of public participation in private corporate governance stands in contrast with the liberal contract and property system of the United States. These historical divergences of stakeholder or shareholder orientations stand apart: in the United States, attention to stakeholder inclusion has remained an academic exercise, while French and European governance embodies substantial stakeholder inclusion. Integrating a critical mass of women into the world’s largest economy’s corporate management will revolutionize capital structures and the regulatory regimes that govern them. This Article argues that quotas may serve to heighten the divide between Europe and other regions on stakeholder/shareholder corporate governance. * Professor, Paris-Sud Law School (France), Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, and the Director of the Institute for Law Ethics Patrimony in Paris (http://www.idep.u-psud.fr/). ** Professor, Pace Law School. The authors would like to thank Adam Weiss, David Restrepo, Matt Collibee, James Healy, and C.J. Croll for their assistance. An earlier version of this Article appeared in TOWARDS A EUROPEAN LEGAL CULTURE 165 (Genevieve Helleringer & Kai Purnhagen eds., 2014). R&M_FINAL_WEB.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 6/20/14 7:36 PM Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 34:249 (2014) 250 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Housing Subsidies and Homelessness: A Simple Idea

Reducing homelessness is an indisputable social good, and housing subsidies offer one way to do so. However, subsidies come in many different varieties and are intricately bound up with economic and social policies. This paper, written by one of North America’s leading urban economists, cuts through the tangle and argues that the simplest approach is the best. The ideal way to deter people from harmful acts is to reward them for abstaining. Thus, to combat homelessness, governments should offer housing allowances to people for every night they are not homeless. This optimal homelessness-reducing home allowance (OHRHA) is open to adjustment to suit individual circumstances and the effects of homelessness on different demographics. It is meant to reduce homelessness by aligning individual and societal incentives, forcing people to bear the consequences or realize the benefits that their actions impose on others. The author explores methods for financing OHRHA, examines means for tailoring it to meet the diverse needs of the homeless and discusses the policy’s effect on urban housing markets, all while comparing and contrasting the proposal to existing homelessness-reduction measures in Alberta, Canada and the US.
Global Smartphones Sales May Have Peaked

Global smartphone sales may have peaked. After reaching nearly 1.5 billion units in 2016, global smartphone sales have since declined, contributing negatively to world trade in 2019 and suggesting that the global market may now be saturated. This paper develops a simple model to forecast smartphone sales, which shows that sales are likely to decline further. As tech companies shift to embedded services (cloud computing, content subscriptions, and financial services), the impact on global trade may also be shifting in favor of services exports mostly from advanced economies.
Regulating abortion: Impact on patients and providers in Texas

The State of Texas began enforcement of the Woman's Right to Know (WRTK) Act on January 1, 2004. The law requires that all abortions at or after 16 weeks' gestation be performed in an ambulatory surgical center (ASC). In the month the law went into effect, not one of Texas's 54 nonhospital abortion providers met the requirements of a surgical center. The effect was immediate and dramatic. The number of abortions performed in Texas at or after 16 weeks' gestation dropped 88 percent, from 3,642 in 2003 to 446 in 2004, while the number of residents who left the state for a late abortion almost quadrupled. By 2006, abortions at or after 16 weeks' gestation in a nonhospital setting were available in four major cities in Texas (down from nine in 2003), and the abortion rate at or after 16 weeks' gestation remained 50 percent below its pre-Act level. Regulation of abortion providers that require new facilities or costly renovations could have profound effects on the market for second-trimester abortions. © 2011 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.
Outraged Consumers: Getting Even at the Expense of Getting a Good Deal

This article introduces the concept of desire for consumer vengeance. Desire for consumer vengeance (DCV) is conceptualized as the desire of a decision maker to “get even” with an entity, such as a firm, in response to a perceived wrongdoing. Drawing on research in psychology and organization behavior, a theoretical framework is proposed for understanding variables that influence the extent to which the DCV is felt and the conditions under which one acts on such feelings. The results of 2 experiments show that, given sufficient desire for vengeance, some consumers will choose a suboptimal decision outcome to get even with a firm. We also find that it is the interpersonal factors of the redress experience, rather than its tangible outcomes, that drive consumers to exact revenge on firms after a dissatisfying experience.
Trinko: Going All the Way

The Supreme Court's decision in Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (2004), was unanimous and the principal opinion was very short. Moreover, the opinion dealt with a very limited aspect of a small and highly regulated sector of the economy. Nevertheless, the opinion may have a more general impact on Section 2 jurisprudence relating to the monopolist's so-called "duty-to-deal." The basic argument in the paper is that Trinko exposed some serious problems that surround any such duty. While the opinion did not reach a definitive conclusion on how the doctrine should be reformulated (or even whether it should be reformulated at all) it planted the seed for a complete overhaul. When Trinko is taken to its logical conclusion, it may be that the "duty-to-deal" has either been eliminated entirely or has been confined to a very tiny pocket of exceptional situations. The key to the analysis is understanding the terms on which any duty to deal would take place. If the monopolist is not required to sacrifice profits in conforming to its duty, a court is placed in the awkward position of determining whether the price offered by the monopolist is too high to be a "legitimate" profit-maximizing price. It is questionable whether the courts have the institutional capacity to deal with these few pathological and therefore we may expect to see the duty eliminated altogether.
AUSTRIAN LAW AND ECONOMICS: THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF ADOLF REINACH AND MURRAY ROTHBARD ON LAW, ECONOMICS, AND PRAXEOLOGY

In the cases discussed above, where Rothbard and Reinach agree, I support both of them. Where they diverge, I am in accord with the former. Nevertheless, Reinach has made an important contribution to our analysis of law. His praxeological perspective is very much a complement to Austrian analysis. His examples alone are worth the price of admission. There is some overlap between the two legal philosophers, and that they approach these issues utilizing alternative analytic tools is of great interest to legal philosophy.
In Defense of Public-Sector Unions

“America is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Who are the people? . . . We’re the farmers that fed the nation. We’re the firefighters that saved the nation. We’re the police officers who protect the nation. We’re the teachers who taught the nation. We’re the nurses that healed the nation. We’re the construction workers who built the nation. We’re the truck drivers who move the nation. We’re the coal miners that energize the nation. The American labor movement—we are the people.” 2
A Cap on the Defendant's Appeal Bond?: Punitive Damages Tort Reform

The defendant's supersedeas or appeal bond was a servile drudge of appellate procedure until enormous punitive damages verdicts catapulted it out of local courthouses into headlines. From the verdict that exceeded $10 billion in Pennzoil v. Texaco in the 1980s to the punitive damages verdict of $145 billion in Engle v. Liggett Group that was reversed in the summer of 2006, appeal bonds have played a crucial role in huge-verdict litigation. This article's topic - tort reform statutes that cap an appeal bond - stemmed from punitive damages verdicts in smokers' trials against tobacco companies. Beginning with appellate procedure, the article traces the appeal bond through related topics: federal abstention, bankruptcy, the arguments for and against state tort-reform statutes that cap an appeal bond, and state and federal constitutional doctrines, including the United States Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause. Since constitutions neither compel nor forbid a limited appeal bond, the author resolved that the decision to cap or not to cap resides in the legislature's realm of evaluating public policy. The appeal bond cap's function of facilitating the defendant's entryway to the appellate court whose warranty is a crucial imprimatur for accurate and legitimate judicial decisionmaking convinced the author to commend a cap of $25 to $50 million for a defendant's appeal bond on a jury's verdict for punitive damages.
Restoring the Grand Jury

In recent years, the grand jury has been overly criticized and underutilized. While many recent scholars have proposed reforms that would reinvigorate the grand jury, most of these reforms are ill-designed and unmoored to the historical purposes of the grand jury. Especially in an era of plea bargains, the grand jury has the potential to serve a crucial role in insuring popular legitimacy in the criminal justice system. While much of the existing rhetoric about the grand jury is wrong, some criticism of the institution is certainly due. As the United States has become more diverse, the grand jury has lost its role as “the voice of the community” and become instead a melting pot in which each community’s voice is lost amid a cacophony of voices from other communities. Since a grand jury functions by majority vote and is now generally drawn from the entire jurisdiction, the grand jury no longer serves as a countermajoritarian force of the local community against central authority. The gradual homogenization of the grand jury may have had a particularly strong impact on minority communities where legitimacy issues are most serious. Ironically, it was well-intentioned efforts to insure diversity in criminal justice – through the rule that trial juries should be drawn from panels representing a “fair cross-section of the community” – that undermined the grand jury’s role when this rule was unthinkingly imported into the grand jury context. No jurisdiction is just one community, and no grand jury can serve its purpose of representing any community if it is drawn from all communities. The proper way to restore the grand jury is neither to manipulate grand jury evidentiary rules nor to adopt any other reforms that have been proposed in recent years, but instead to insure that the grand jury represents an actual community. Grand juries must be reconstituted so that each grand jury represents a neighborhood, an actual community of people who are concerned about local issues of criminal justice. ∗ Oneida Nation Visiting Associate Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, 200708; Associate Professor, University of Minnesota Law School. RESTORING THE GRAND JURY ii Table of
The Lengthened Shadow of Another Institution? Ideal Point Estimates for the Executive Branch and Congress

While the president's relationship to Congress has been carefully studied, the broader executive branch has received far less attention in that context. Scholars rely on assumptions about the relationship between the president and cabinet departments that remain untested. We construct the first statistical portrait of executive branch ideology by estimating ideal points for members of Congress, presidents, and the heads of cabinet-level departments between 1991 and 2004 in a Bayesian framework. We empirically assess claims about the composition of the president's administrative team and the influence of institutions on the ideology of principal executive decision makers. We also test an important claim regarding the trade-off between ideological congruence and budgetary authority to demonstrate the utility of our estimates for other scholars. Our analysis reveals a new picture of the executive branch as ideologically diverse, casting into doubt some essential assumptions in a substantial body of work on the separation of powers.
Amoral Numbers and Narcotics Sentencing

Americans are fascinated with lists and rankings. Magazines catch the eye with covers promising “92 Cute Summer Looks,” college football fans anxiously await the release of pre-season rankings, and law schools have reshaped themselves in reaction to the rankings released by U.S. News and World Report. With each of these, though, the lists often do more to create a reality than to reflect one, with distinct negative effects. The same problem plagues federal narcotics sentencing, where rankings of the relative seriousness of crimes are embedded in sentencing guidelines and minimum sentences required by statutes, though they are rooted neither in empirical evidence nor a consistent theory of problem-solving.
A concern about shifting interactions between indigenous and non-indigenous parties in US climate adaptation contexts

Indigenous peoples everywhere are preparing for or already coping with a number of climate change impacts, from rising sea-levels to shifting harvesting seasons. It is plausible that the capacity for environmental protection of two political institutions will change in relation to certain impacts: treaties and indigenous governmental jurisdictions recognised by the federal governments of nations such as the USA or Canada. This essay explores critically whether current solutions for these changes depend far too crucially on non-indigenous parties’ coming to an appropriate understanding of indigenous culture and self-determination.
Stories Told and Untold: Confidentiality Laws and the Master Narrative of Child Welfare

In most states, child welfare hearings and records are sealed or confidential. This means that by law, court hearings and records may not be observed. The same laws and court rules also preclude those who are authorized to enter and watch from discussing anything learned or observed in a closed courtroom or from a sealed court record with anyone not involved in the case. It is the restriction on speech - on telling stories about child welfare - with which this Article is concerned. The master narrative of child welfare depicts foster care as a haven for child-victims savagely brutalized by “deviant,” “monstrous” parents. Notwithstanding this shared public understanding, however, most children in foster care have experienced, or are alleged to have experienced, neglect - deprivation of food, clothing, shelter, education, or another necessity of life - not physical abuse. There is also a growing understanding that some children in foster care ought not to be there at all. In addition, research and experience indicate that many maltreated children would be better off if simply left at home - with those responsible for the maltreatment - rather than placed in foster care.This Article argues that confidentiality laws perpetuate the inaccurate master narrative, and preclude other stories from informing or influencing that narrative. Stated simply, laws prohibiting the discussion of child welfare cases silence a vast number of stories. By their terms, these laws define the stories that may not be told, and the putative storytellers who may not speak, while designating as acceptable other stories and other voices. The unchallenged dominance of the inaccurate, law-sanctioned narrative affects even those involved in child welfare as a profession, and by affecting their worldview, diminishes the quality of care provided to children. The laws that require silence outside the courtroom permit the acceptance of pervasive dysfunction in child welfare, and affect the administration of justice inside the courtroom.
Life‐Cycle Channel Coordination Issues in Launching an Innovative Durable Product

We analyze the dynamic strategic interactions between a manufacturer and a retailer in a decentralized distribution channel used to launch an innovative durable product (IDP). The underlying retail demand for the IDP is influenced by word-of-mouth from past adopters and follows a Bass-type diffusion process. The word-of-mouth influence creates a trade-off between immediate and future sales and profits, resulting in a multi-period dynamic supply chain coordination problem. Our analysis shows that while in some environments, the manufacturer is better off with a far-sighted retailer, there are also environments in which the manufacturer is better off with a myopic retailer. We characterize equilibrium dynamic pricing strategies and the resulting sales and profit trajectories. We demonstrate that revenue-sharing contracts can coordinate the IDP's supply chain with both far-sighted and myopic retailers throughout the entire planning horizon and arbitrarily allocate the channel profit.
Merry Sisterhood or Guarded Watchfulness? Cooperation Between the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank

Since their inception at the end of the Second World War, the sister organizations of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have aimed to consistently speak with one voice vis-a-vis their member governments. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that they often do not speak in one voice. Fabricius draws on field research conducted in Ghana, Pakistan, Peru, and Vietnam to identify the conditions that determine whether or not the organizations are indeed on the same page and to address whether their traditional plea for consistency is always desirable. He recommends which measures seem crucial to ensure Bank-Fund consistency. At the same time he argues that under certain conditions, this consistency may lead to policy choices that are only second-best. He proposes that the Bank and the Fund pursue a case-specific approach in deciding whether they should take the same stance. A more flexible approach may increase not only the ownership of borrowing countries but also the sustainability of policy choices.