Penalty and Crime with Lumpy Choices
Laurent Franckx ()
Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2004, vol. 16, issue 4, 403-421
This paper clarifies an issue in the Hirshleifer and Rasmusen-Tsebelis controversy on the effects of penalties on crime: what is the effect of penalties if the transgression of law has a discrete nature and if the law enforcer cannot act as Stackelberg leader? We differentiate between technical (compliance costs) and institutional (penalties) parameters in the potential transgressorâ€™s payoffâ€™s functions. Depending on the penalty structure, we obtain equilibria either in pure or in mixed strategies. We confirm that the role played by penalties in mixed strategy equilibria is fundamentally different from the role they play in pure strategies. We also identify sufficient conditions for the implementability and uniqueness of given equilibria when there are restrictions on the penalties and/or on the incentive schemes for the law enforcers. Finally, we give a rationalization for the use of mixed strategies as a solution concept in law enforcement games.
Keywords: economic; analysis; of; law; enforcement (search for similar items in EconPapers)
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:16:y:2004:i:4:p:403-421
Access Statistics for this article
More articles in Journal of Theoretical Politics
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().