Advertisement

Imperfect verification, appeals, and limited liability

  • Chifeng Dai
Original Article

Abstract

We examine the effect of an imperfect verification and a subsequent appeals process in regulatory settings where legal or institutional restrictions impose an upper bound on penalties. We show that the verification always enhances social welfare despite the limit on penalties. The subsequent appeals process, which allows the firm to challenge an unfavorable finding by the regulator, is never socially optimal when it is costless. However, when the appeals process is costly, it can be optimal even if it is less accurate than the verification. Moreover, social welfare can increase as the cost of the appeals process increases.

Keywords

Verification Appeals Limited liability 

JEL classification

D8 L5 

References

  1. Baron D., Besanko D. (1984) Regulation, asymmetric information, and auditing. Rand Journal of Economics 15: 447–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-Yashar R., Nitzan S. (1997) The optimal decision rule for fixed size committees in dichotomous choice situations: The general result. International Economic Review 38: 175–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben-Yashar R., Nitzan S. (1998) Quality and structure of organizational decision making. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 36: 521–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dai, C. (2009). The appeals process in principal-agent relationships. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2009.02.006.
  5. Koh W.T.H. (1992) Human fallibility and sequential decision-making: Hierarchy versus polyarchy. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 18: 317–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Laffont J.J., Tirole J. (1986) Using cost observation to regulate firms. Journal of Political Economy 94: 614–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lawarrée J.P., Van Audenrode M.A. (1992) Cost observation, auditing and limited liability. Economics Letters 39: 419–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Nitzan S., Paroush J. (1980) Investment in human capital and social self protection. International Economic Review 21: 547–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nitzan S., Paroush J. (1982) Optimal decision rules in uncertain dichotomous choice situations. International Economic Review 23: 289–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Nitzan S., Paroush J. (1984) The significance of independent decisions in uncertain dichotomous choice situations. Theory and Decision 17: 47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Riordan M.H., Sappington D.E. (1988) Optimal contracts with public ex post information. Journal of Economic Theory 45: 189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sah R. (1991) Fallibility in human organizations and political systems. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5: 67–88Google Scholar
  13. Sah R., Stiglitz J. (1986) The architecture of economic systems: Hierarchies and polyarchies. American Economic Review 76: 716–727Google Scholar
  14. Sah R., Stiglitz J. (1988) Committees, hierarchies and polyarchies. Economic Journal 98: 451–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shavell S. (1995) The appeals process as a means of error correction. Journal of Legal Studies 24: 379–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shavell S. (2006) The appeals process and adjudicator incentives. Journal of Legal Studies 35: 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Spitzer M., Talley E. (2000) Judicial auditing. Journal of Legal Studies 29: 649–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsSouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleUSA

Personalised recommendations