Simple rules for a complex regulatory world: the case of financial regulation

European Journal of Law and Economics - Twenty-five years ago Richard Epstein published Simple Rules for a Complex World, which would go on to become one of Epstein’s most influential works....     

Simple rules for a more inclusive economy

European Journal of Law and Economics - This paper explores some of the reasons why capitalism experiences periodic crises of legitimacy and asks whether Richard Epstein’s “simple...     

Simple monetary rules: many strengths and few weaknesses

This paper endeavors to examine the basic idea in Richard Epstein’s book Simple Rules for a Complex World. It does so by considering a specific simple rule which was explicitly designed for complex world. A basic idea in Epstein’s book is that the more complex is the world the better is the case for simple rules. To show this, he develops six simple rules pertaining to the rights of individuals, first possession, contracts, torts, government eminent domain and the power of taxation to provide public goods. This paper considers one rule rather than six rules, and it looks at monetary policy rather than policy in general. While the context is different, the case for simple rules made here provides a useful comparison with the case made by Epstein.

     

The stages of managed care regulation: developing better rules

The managed care industry is at a crossroads. Belief in the ability of market forces alone to create an environment fostering quality health care at lower cost is eroding. Regulators across the country are confronted with a growing consumer backlash against managed care. As a result, states have passed managed care reform legislation at unprecedented rates. In doing so, states are confronted with a patchwork of federal intervention and preemption. We examine the stages of these recent state and federal developments and evaluate them in terms of the traditional objectives of a reasonably functioning health care system: quality care, access, and cost containment.     

Insider trading and the public enforcement of private prohibitions: some complications in enforcing simple rules for a complex world

Accepting the argument made by Manne, Epstein and others that firms wishing to allow their employees to insider trade should be permitted to do so, this article shows that there is still a crucial role for government in regulating insider trading. In particular, allowing employees to profit by insider trading is a form of employee compensation that, in contradistinction from conventional forms of equity compensation, results in unknowable and effectively unlimited costs to the company. Since providing employee compensation in this form causes the company to lose control of its compensation expense, even if insider trading were legal, virtually every company would rely on conventional forms of employee compensation and prohibit its employees from insider trading. But, pace Manne, Epstein and others, companies lack the means to detect insider trading by their employees, and even when they do catch employees insider trading, companies can impose only mild contractual sanctions, generally not exceeding disgorgement of profits and dismissal. As a result, although an efficient agreement between a company and its employee would prohibit the employee from insider trading, this prohibition cannot be effectively enforced by the company. Government, with its usual law enforcement powers, is better able to detect insider trading and can impose more severe sanctions on violators, including criminal penalties. Government should thus enforce a ban on insider trading in those instances, which will be virtually all instances, in which a company prohibits its employees from insider trading. The efficient solution is thus a hybrid system of private prohibition and public enforcement. Such a system is not unusual but the norm. Employers prohibit employees from embezzling their money and stealing their property, and employees are subject to contractual sanctions and dismissal for violating these prohibitions, but we still need statutes against theft to generate an optimal level of deterrence. This is all the more true when the employee misappropriates information, which is much harder to detect than a theft of money or property.

     

Simple rules and the Political Economy of Income Taxation: the strengths of a uniform expense rule

European Journal of Law and Economics - The complexity of the U.S. income tax system emerged in part from the differentiated fiscal treatment of specific investments and various sorts of business...     

Representing the healthcare organization in a post-Sarbanes-Oxley world: new rules, new paradigms, new perils

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Act) significantly changed the expected corporate behavior of public companies. The Act governs the relationship between corporate organizations and their in-house or outside counsel. Under Section 307 of the Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission initially proposed expansive rules regarding counsel's duties. After comments and criticism from much of the bar, a final, narrower, version of rules under Section 307 (Final Rule) was adopted. The Final Rule contains alternative reporting procedures, attorney responsibilities, and sanctions for violations. In addition to the Act, the American Bar Association's (ABA) Task Force on Corporate Responsibility(Task Force), which was itself a reaction to Enron, reported on the importance of counsel's role in a corporate setting (Cheek Report). The ABA adopted amendments to its Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Model Rules) 1.6 and 1.13 as proposed in the Cheek Report. The Final Rule and amended Model Rules together suggest that attorneys may owe duties beyond those owed to their clients.     

Abstract rules for complex systems

European Journal of Law and Economics - This article addresses the question—What is the structure of rules required to undergird a complex dynamic system of actions such as the market...     

Interim rules for health insurance portability for group health plans--HCFA. Interim rules with request for comments

This document contains interim rules governing access, portability and renewability requirements for group health plans and issuers of health insurance coverage offered in connection with a group health plan. The rules contained in this document implement changes made to certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) enacted as part of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the interim rules for consideration by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, and the Department of the Treasury (Departments) in developing final rules. The rules contained in this document are being adopted in an interim basis to accommodate statutorily established time frames intended to ensure that sponsors and administrators of group health plans, participants and beneficiaries, States, and issuers of group health insurance coverage have timely guidance concerning compliance with the recently enacted requirements of HIPAA.     

对纯粹经济损失赔付规则的探析

纯粹经济损失是当今民法研习中的难点问题，由于表现形态各异，至今没有准确统一的概念。它同时涉及侵权法和合同法两大领域，导致很难获得赔付。然而这些不予赔付的理由并不充分，应该结合中国当前立法，采取适当的控制机制，在一定范围内承认纯粹经济损失的赔付问题。     

Legal rules and the basis for evaluating economic losses

Damages or a loss in economic well-being can be measured by either the maximum sum people would pay to avoid the loss, or by the minimum compensation they would require to accept it. These alternative bases for evaluation have been assumed to yield fully equivalent measurements, and as a consequence no discrimination is usually made between them in assessment procedures. However, contrary to this presumption recent evidence from survey studies and from real exchange experimental tests shows that measures of values vary widely depending on which of the two bases is used. As an accounting of losses in economic welfare often figures prominently in the settlement of disputes and in the establishment of legal rules, this disparity can cause considerable ambiguity and lead to unintended and undesired outcomes: it can undermine negligence and nuisance determinations and project feasibility judgments, can bring about seriously incorrect assessments of losses and inadequate indemnification of damages, and can bias determinations over a range of other instances where measures of economic values are used.     

Revisions to rules of conduct and standards of responsibility for representatives. Final rules

We are revising our rules of conduct and standards of responsibility for representatives. These revisions further clarify our expectations regarding representatives' obligations to competently represent their clients and constitute official notice concerning our requirements and procedures. We are also updating other rules about the representation of parties. These changes are necessary because our current regulations are insufficient to address some representative conduct that is inappropriate, but has technically fallen outside the scope of our regulations. These changes will allow us to better protect the integrity of our administrative process, ensure that claimants receive competent and effective representation, and further clarify representatives' responsibilities in their dealings with us and with claimants.     

Interim rules for mental health parity--IRS, DoL, HCFA. Interim rules with request for comments

This document contains interim rules governing parity between medical/surgical benefits and mental health benefits in group health plans and health insurance coverage offered by issuers in connection with a group health plan. The rules contained in this document implement changes made to certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or Act), and the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) enacted as part of the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 (MHPA) and the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the interim rules for consideration by the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Health and Human Services (Departments) in developing final rules. The rules contained in this document are being adopted on an interim basis to ensure that sponsors and administrators of group health plans, participants and beneficiaries, States, and issuers of group health insurance coverage have timely guidance concerning compliance with the requirements of MHPA.     

Interim rules for health insurance portability for group health plans; correction--HCFA. Correction to interim rules

This document contains corrections to interim rules which were published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16894). The interim rules govern the access, portability and renewability requirements for group health plans and issuers of health insurance coverage offered in connection with a group health plan under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).