A New Angle on Rules versus Standards

Ezra Friedman () and Abraham L. Wickelgren

American Law and Economics Review, 2014, vol. 16, issue 2, 499-549

Abstract: The debate over standards versus rules has traditionally been framed as a trade-off between the certainty and lower administrative costs of rules versus standards' flexibility to consider case-specific information. We argue that even if judges have no ability to directly assess case-specific information, using standards creates a sorting effect that favors ex-post efficient decisions. When judges are not bound by rules, their decision is more likely to be sensitive to the quality of legal representation. In the absence of externalities, the party that desires the ex-post efficient decision has the most to gain, and, thus, a greater incentive to invest in high-quality representation. While the higher litigation costs under standards can easily outweigh the increased likelihood of an efficient decision, bargaining in the shadow of standards can preserve their sorting benefit while ameliorating the increase in legal costs.

Date: 2014
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/aler/aht013 (application/pdf)
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: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:amlawe:v:16:y:2014:i:2:p:499-549.

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://academic.oup.com/journals

Access Statistics for this article

American Law and Economics Review is currently edited by J.J. Prescott and Albert Choi

More articles in American Law and Economics Review from American Law and Economics Association Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().