Advertisement

European Journal of Law and Economics

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 277–290 | Cite as

There ain’t no such thing as a free deed: the case of Italian notaries

  • Luciano LavecchiaEmail author
  • Carlo Stagnaro
Article

Abstract

The cost of starting a business in Italy is relatively high as compared with other EU member states. One reason is the cost of notarization, which is mandatory under the Italian law. In order to reduce this cost, in 2012 a new type of limited liability company was created—the simplified limited liability company—for which notarization should be provided free-of-charge. In this paper we explore the reasons behind the requirement of notarization and review the evidence from a few cases where notarization was made optional. Subsequently, we describe the results of an ad hoc experiment in order to evaluate the design of the policy. We performed a randomized control trial involving almost 350 notaries in Rome, Italy. We find that the majority of the notaries in our sample do not fulfill the obligation by asking a greater-than-zero fee, therefore suggesting the policy is not fully effective. We conclude that obliging notaries to perform specific tasks below-costs (or even free-of-charge) may not be an effective policy, leading to suboptimal results.

Keywords

Notary Competition Italy Liberalization Productivity RCT 

JEL Classification

D23 C93 D43 

Notes

References

  1. Arrunada, B. (1996). The economics of notaries. European Journal of Law and Economics, 3(1), 5–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrunada, B. (2007a). Pitfalls to avoid when measuring the institutional environment: Is ’doing business’ damaging business? Journal of Comparative Economics, 35(4), 729–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrunada, B. (2007b). Market and institutional determinants in the regulation of conveyancers. European Journal of Law and Economics, 23(2), 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arrunada, B. (2009). How doing business jeopardizes institutional reform. European Business Organization Law Review, 10(4), 555–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arrunada, B. (2010). Leaky title syndrome? New Zealand Law Journal, 115–120. UPF Economics and Business Working Paper No. 1193.Google Scholar
  6. Arrunada, B. (2012). Institutional foundations of impersonal exchange. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Athey, S., & Imbens, G. (2017). The econometrics of randomized experiments. In A. B (Ed.), Handbook of field experiments, chapter 3 (Vol. 1, p. 1). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baarn, J. (2013). Regulated and non-regulated professions in the Netherlands. The Hague: Ministerie van Economische Zaken.Google Scholar
  9. Banca d’Italia. (2018). Financial stability report. Technical Report 1, Banca d’Italia.Google Scholar
  10. Bianco, M., Giacomelli, S., & Rodano G. (2012). Competition and regulation in Italy. Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers) 123, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.Google Scholar
  11. Conway, P., & Nicoletti, G. (2006). Product market regulation in the nonmanufacturing sectors of oecd countries. Economics Department Working Papers 530, OECD.Google Scholar
  12. Costa, M. (2017). How responsive are political elites? A meta-analysis of experiments on public officials. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 4(3), 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deaton, A. (2009). Instruments of development: Randomization in the tropics, and the search for the elusive keys to economic development. Working Papers 1128, Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Center for Health and Wellbeing.Google Scholar
  14. Enriques, L. (2005). Scelte pubbliche e interessi particolari nella riforma delle societa di capitali. Mercato Concorrenza Regole, Rivista quadrimestrale, 1(1/2005), 145–192.Google Scholar
  15. European Commission. (2017). Council recommendation on the 2017 national reform programme of Italy and delivering a Council opinion on the 2017 Stability Programme of Italy. Working Papers COM(2017) 511 final, European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  16. Giulietti, C., Tonin, M., & Vlassopoulos, M. (2017). Racial discrimination in local public services: A field experiment in the united states. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(1), jvx045.Google Scholar
  17. Gottschalk, F., Mimra, W., & Waibel, C. (2017). Health services as credence goods: A field experiment. SSRN, number 3036573.Google Scholar
  18. Hoffman, P. T., Postel-Vinay, G., Rosenthal J.-L. (1994). What do notaries do? Overcoming asymmetric information in financial markets: The case of Paris, 1751. UCLA Economics Working Papers 719, UCLA Department of Economics.Google Scholar
  19. Istat (2018). Startup survey 2016. Technical report, Istat.Google Scholar
  20. Koske, I., Wanner, I., Bitetti, R., & Barbiero, O. (2015). The 2013 update of the OECD product market regulation indicators: Policy insights for OECD and non-OECD countries. Economics Department Working Papers 1200, OECD.Google Scholar
  21. Kuijpers, N., Noailly, J., & Vollaard, B. (2005). Liberalisation of the Dutch notary profession; reviewing its scope and impact. CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, number 93.Google Scholar
  22. Lavecchia, L., & Stagnaro, C. (2017). Notai: pubblici ufficiali o professionisti privati? Evidenze da un eseprimento di randomizzazione. Mercato Concorrenza Regole, 1(1), 79–104.Google Scholar
  23. Mocetti, S., Roma, G., & Rubolino, E. (2018). Knocking on parents’ doors: Regulation and intergenerational mobility. Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 1182, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.Google Scholar
  24. Nahuis, R., & Noailly, J. (2005). Competition and quality in the notary profession. CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, number 94.Google Scholar
  25. Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be done? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Paterson, I., Fink, M., Ogus, A. (2003). Economic impact of regulation in the field of liberal professions in different Member States. Institut für Höhere Studien. Study for the European Commission—DG CompetitionGoogle Scholar
  27. Schmid, C. (2012). The Dutch and German notarial systems compared. ZERP Working Paper, number 2.Google Scholar
  28. Shinnick, E., Bruinsma, F., & Parker, C. (2003). Aspects of regulatory reform in the legal profession: Australia, Ireland and the Netherlands. International Journal of the Legal Profession, 10(3), 237–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sims, C. A. (2003). Implications of rational inattention. Journal of Monetary Economics, 50(3), 665–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tavares, A. F., & Rodrigues, M. A. (2013). From civil servants to liberal professionals: An empirical analysis of the reform of Portuguese notaries. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79(2), 347–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tirole, J. (2017). Economics for the common good. Princenton: Princenton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van den Bergh, R., & Montangie, Y. (2006a). Competition in professional services markets: Are Latin notaries different? Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 2(2), 189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van den Bergh, R., & Montangie Y. (2006b). Theory and evidence on the regulation of the Latin notary profession. Ecri-report 604, ECRI.Google Scholar
  34. World Bank. (2004). Doing business 2004: Understanding regulation. Washington: World Bank.Google Scholar
  35. World Bank. (2013). Doing business in Italy 2013: Smarter regulations for small and medium-sized enterprises. Washington: World Bank.Google Scholar
  36. World Bank. (2017). Doing business 2017: Equal opportunity for all. Washington: World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Istituto Bruno LeoniMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations