Litigation versus Legislation: Forum Shopping by Rent Seekers

Paul H. Rubin (), Christopher Curran and John F Curran

Public Choice, 2001, vol. 107, issue 3-4, pages 295-310

Abstract: To change the law, an interest group must choose between lobbying the legislature and litigating for new precedent. Lobbying becomes more likely as the relative benefits from rule change become greater, as the costs of lobbying become smaller and as the voting strength of the interest groups becomes larger. Litigating becomes more likely as trial costs fall, as the relative benefits from rule change become greater, as the inclination of courts to change existing precedents increases, and as the interest group is involved in more trials. Examples of using a litigating strategy include the NAACP is its battle for racial integration and attorneys seeking change in tort law. Business, in resisting changes to tort law, has used the judicial process. The nature of equilibrium, if any, is not clear. Copyright 2001 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Date: 2001
View citations in EconPapers

Downloads: (external link)
http://journals.kluweronline.com/issn/0048-5829/contents link to full text (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:107:y:2001:i:3-4:p:295-310

Access Statistics for this article

Public Choice is edited by Charles K. Rowley, WIlliam F. Shughart and Robert D. Tollison

More articles in Public Choice from Springer
Series data maintained by Christopher F. Baum ().