Some crimes involve the cooperation of two or more criminals for mutual gain. Instead of deterring these crimes, the state can prevent them by creating distrust among criminals. The state should offer amnesty and a bounty to the criminal who first secures punishment of the other participant in a cooperative crime. We especially focus on bribes, which occur when someone pays an agent to violate a duty owed to the principal. To prevent bribes, the principal offers amnesty and a bounty to the debtor or agent who secures the other party’s punishment. Under certain conditions, the game’s equilibrium changes from cooperation to non-cooperation (prisoner’s dilemma), so bribes disappear.

In recent decades, many countries around the world have institutionalized judicial councils of some sort. These institutions are designed to maintain an appropriate balance between judicial independence and accountability. However, they differ in attributes and competences across the world. Our paper has two aims. First, we provide an economic theory of the formation of judicial councils and identify some of the dimensions along which they differ. Second, we test the extent to which different designs of judicial council affect judicial quality. We find that there is little relationship between councils and quality. We also offer a positive explanation for why judicial councils nevertheless remain attractive institutions. Finally, we discuss several experiences from the perspective of our theory.

Previous works on asymmetric information in asset markets tend to focus on the potential gains in the asset market itself. We focus on the market for information and conduct an experimental study to explore, in a game of finite but uncertain duration, whether reputation can be an effective constraint on deliberate misinformation. At the beginning of each period, an uninformed potential asset buyer can purchase information, at a fixed price and from a fully-informed source, about the value of the asset in that period. The informational insiders cannot purchase the asset and are given short-term incentives to provide false information when the asset value is low. Our model predicts that, in accordance with the Folk Theorem, Pareto-superior outcomes featuring truthful revelation should be sustainable. However, this depends critically on beliefs about rationality and behavior. We find that, overall, sellers are truthful 89% of the time. More significantly, the observed frequency of truthfulness is 81% when the asset value is low. Our result is consistent with both mixedstrategy and trigger strategy interpretations and provides evidence that most subjects correctly anticipate rational behavior. We discuss applications to financial markets, media regulation, and the stability of cartels.

Duty of care cannot be used anymore as the touchstone to differentiate negligence from strict liability, because the scope of liability (traditionally called proximate causation) requirement replicates many of the former features. Indeed, under a negligence rule the marginal Hand formula is applied twice: first to assess whether the defendant did breach his or her duty of care, and, second, to delimit whether defendant's behavior was a proximate cause of the harm suffered by the victim. But under a strict liability rule, the Hand formula question is applied only once when the proximate causation question is raised. Traditional law and economics analysis has almost always taken normative questions raised by the causation requirement as given, which is a major flaw of mainstream models, because the centrality of the scope of liability or proximate causation requirement in real legal practice is disregarded if not simply expelled from the analysis. Then, definining the subjective scope of liability, that is to say, the boundaries of the pool of potential defendants, is the basic policy decision in each an every liability rule. In the model presented in this paper, the government first chooses efficient scope of liability, and, second, given the scope of liability, the government decides liability rule and damages that guarantee efficient precaution. In the final part of the article, most known scope of liability doctrines developed by both common law and civil law systems are described in order to show how large the common ground between negligene and strict liability can be.