- HSE: Economics of Health and safety - Appraisal values or 'unit costs'
- Accidents at Work and Costs Analysis: A Field Study in a Large Italian Company
- What is Kobo Super Points?
Neither the rule of strict liability nor the rule of no liability creates the right incentives for precautions for both parties as required for efficiency under the assumption of bilateral precaution. Both the parties have incentives for externalizing a part of the cost and therefore undertaking efficient precautions. The strict liability rule in order to be efficient must be supplemented by the rule of contributory negligence. A negligence rule imposes a legal standard of care with which the agents must comply in order to avoid liability.
The standard defining due care for the victim has to be set at the Pareto optimal level. Under the rule of negligence with a defence of contributory negligence the negligent injurer can escape liability by proving that the victims precaution fell short of legal standards of care. Comparative negligence divides the cost of harm between the parties in proportion to their contribution of their negligence to the accident.
The economic analysis of law proved a startling fact about tort liability: Assuming perfect compensation and each legal standard set at the efficient level of care every form of negligence rule gives the injurer and victim incentive for efficient precaution. Jain shows that the efficiency of liability rules depend on what constitutes negligence. If an individuals care level is found to be less than the legally specified one then the individual is said to have been negligent.
The main finding is that if negligence is determined on the basis of cost justified untaken precautions then there is no liability rule which is efficient. Efficient Liability Rules: Complete Characterization by Jain and Singh provides necessary and sufficient conditions for efficiency of any liability rule. A liability rule is efficient if it induces both the victim and the injurer to undertake total cost minimizing care levels. This therefore involves a unique configuration of care levels which minimizes total social costs. Therefore the question of efficiency of liability rules reduces to the question whether the configuration of total social costs mini-mizing care levels of two parties constitutes a unique Nash Equilibrium in pure strategy or not.
The result is quite robust with respect to many of the issues addressed in this literature. The articles by Brown and Holahan and Alfred Endres address the strategic effects under tort law. Brown and Holahan is an extension of the Brown 2 model which captures and compares the strategic effects of the tort rules of liability with non- strategic effects.
Parties may behave strategically if due care standards are set at a suboptimal level.
HSE: Economics of Health and safety - Appraisal values or 'unit costs'
Movement under strategic behaviour is Pareto superior compared to equilibrium without strategic behaviour. Positive law and economics uses economic analysis to predict the effects of various legal rules. Hence for example a positive economic analysis of tort law would analyse the effects of strict liability as opposed to the effects of negligence. Grady provides an alternative formulation to the conventional approach of comparing an injurers level of precaution with the level that would minimize social costs.
Absence of governmental intervention does not necessarily mean that labour standard is oppressive. Historically national law is not a compelling force towards higher labour standard and lower child labour. Despite stringent laws parents desperately send their children to work as child labour the absence of which could push the family with low adult wage below subsistence level. Thus reduction in child labour is more driven by the economic prosperity of a nation and its wellbeing. As the adult labour income in the family increases there is a shift in demand towards less hazardous works withdrawing children from labour force and so on.
These initiatives are as largely reflected by the proposed introduction of social clause in the World Trade Organization WTO agreements. This is detrimental to the interests of the developing countries as it would allow the developed countries to put trade sanctions on violating minimal labour standards. Humphries article seeks to explain why child labour increased during industrialization and declined thereafter. The explanations are offered through historical analysis economic analysis legal and political stance of the state and social norms and beliefs about appropriate behaviour.
Sunstein draws the lessons from the study of public and private law to insist on diverse modes of valuation. The major revolution in thinking of twentieth century is democracy as a universal relevant system. Sen argues that the claim of democracy as a universal value lies ultimately in the strength.
There is no doubt that the volume is a valuable collection of some pioneering contributions in this field. The objective is to provide an easy access to a bunch of journal articles to the readers. It will definitely serve as an indispensible reference for teaching and research at the postgraduate level.
The volume perhaps could have been even more useful if it had incorporated some other important themes of the disciplines e. Incomplete contracts for example looks at situations where complete contracts cannot be written. In such a situation contracts can only be written contingent on some of the eventualities leaving the outcomes in the other cases to be determined through bragaining later on. The economics literature has already shown that such contractual incompleteness has important implications for efficiency thus suggesting that allowing for incomplete contracts can throw light on various aspects of contract laws.
Measuring compensation and damages is another challenging area where an economic approach could yield spectacular dividends. Calabresi Guido and Hirschoff Jon T. Your email address will not be published. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Skip to content. Economic Analysis of Law. Related posts. Addressing Socio-economic Problems August 7, Since he's taking due care, is not liable and his expected net utility will be:.
Accidents at Work and Costs Analysis: A Field Study in a Large Italian Company
The level of activity will be greater than the optimal one. In the case of strict liability the injurer will be liable whatever the level of care is. We suppose he chooses due care, but he will internalize the expected costs of the injury and so he will minimize them too:. The bilateral case is the case in which a due level of care in order to prevent the accident is to be taken by both the injurer and the victim. So the optimal level of care will be more than zero for both of them.
In this case there is an interdependence of the parties' behavior. That means that the injurer will act in certain way, given that the victim acts in the asserted way; and vice versa. A situation in which that happens will be called a situation of equilibrium, since neither the victim nor the injurer have reason to modify their behavior. In this subsection we will analyze four liability rules: negligence, negligence plus contributory negligence, strict liability plus contributory negligence and comparative negligence.
After that a comparison is deemed necessary in order to investigate the capacity of the rules to influence the level of activity of both parties. If the injurer takes at least due care he will not be found liable, otherwise he will bear the expected losses regardless of the victim's behavior. In the model 15 we can see the expected losses of the parties at the given level of care of each of them:. Suppose A takes due care. The problem is whether A will take care or not.
Since A takes care, B will do the same. The outcome will be efficient: indeed a situation of equilibrium, where neither the victim nor the injurer have reason to change their behavior, is reached. In this case A will be found to be liable only if he failed to take due care and the victim did take; otherwise the victim will bear all the losses. We analyze now the parties' expected costs in order to see if the allocation of these costs is chosen in a way that induces the parties to take care.
We have seen that both parties minimize their expected costs by taking care, which is a situation of equilibrium, so that they minimize the total expected costs too. In this case the injurer will be found liable only if the victim has failed to take due care. In every case in which the victim takes due care the injurer will bear the costs of the injury. We must study, in order to find if the allocation of the expected costs gives incentives to the parties to take due care, the parties' expected costs:. We have seen that B, in order to minimize his expected costs, takes the optimal due care.
Given that chose of B we must see what A will do: he will take care if:. We have seen that both parties, in order to minimize their expected costs will choose to use due care, so the outcome is efficient.
Indeed the situation in which both have to take care to minimize their costs is a situation of equilibrium. In this case the injurer will bear the total expected costs only if he failed to use care but the victim used it. In the case in which both of them fail to take care the losses is shared between them according to their respective shares of damages. We will analyze this situation regardless the respective share of losses they have to bear. We must analyze the parties' expected costs in order to find an equilibrium situation in which the total expected costs are minimized, situation that occurs when both parties take due care.
Let's suppose that A takes care.
What is Kobo Super Points?
Now we must analyze the expected costs of A in relation of B's behavior. We have seen that a possible equilibrium can be reached when both parties take care. In this case the total expected costs are minimized. The case in which only one party takes care is not a situation of equilibrium, that means tat if one party takes care the other will take care too.
The problem, here, is that we must understand if the situation in which both parties don't take care is an equilibrium situation. The equilibrium is reached when both 27 and 29 are true, in other words, when, for both injurer and victim the expected costs are cheaper than the costs of precaution. So the situation in which both injurer and victim don't take care is not an equilibrium, which implies that for one of them will be better to take care.
But if one takes care, also the other must, to minimize his expected costs. The efficient solution is to make the plaintiff liable by refusing to allow him to recover damages from the defendant. If the defendant is liable, the plaintiff will have no incentive to take preventive measures unless the damages to which he would be entitled would not fully compensate him for his injury , and the value-maximizing solution to the accident will not be obtained.
This is not the correct economic standard In a case like this one, it would result in the parties' spending more than the efficient amount on accident prevention. But suppose he were liable for only two third, say, of the accident cost, because the plaintiff was also negligent.
What Posner deals with is the problem of the least costs avoider: in this case a proper rule will set the standard of care equal to zero for the higher cost avoider who will therefore not have incentive to undertake redundant investment in safety. With such an approach, in a pure market, the "accident cost avoidance would require allocation of accident costs to those acts or activity which could avoid the accident costs more cheaply The question for a pure market approach is, then, how we should determine who, in practice, is the cheapest cost avoider In almost every area we can make some rough guesses, based on intuitive notions or on undifferentiated and unanalyzed experiences, as to who is clearly not the cheapest cost avoider and who may be These are, however, guidelines which can be used for finding out who, in the absence of more information, is likely the cheapest cost avoider.
We have seen that, when due care is the optimal level of care, whatever liability rule is chosen, the outcome will be efficient. But in the level of care is not taken into account the level of activity that has some influences in the function of the total expected costs. We will now analyze the liability rules. First we take into account the negligence rule.