On the drivers of the fertility rebound

Economic Change and Restructuring - This paper investigates empirically the fertility rebound in low- and high-income OECD countries for the period 1970 to 2016. The focus is on the turning points...     

The Government as Litigant: Further Tests of the Case Selection Model

We develop a model of the plaintiff's decision to file a lawsuitthat has implications for how differences between the federalgovernment and private litigants translate into differencesin trial rates and plaintiff win rates at trial. Our case selectionmodel generates a set of predictions for relative trial ratesand plaintiff win rates, depending on the type of case and whetherthe government is defendant or plaintiff. To test the model,we use data on about 474,000 cases filed in federal districtcourt between 1979 and 1994 in the areas of personal injuryand job discrimination, in which the federal government andprivate parties work under roughly similar legal rules. We findbroad support for the predictions of the model.     

Patents impediment or expedient to technology transfer

This paper examines the role that patents play in transferring technology. The history of our patent system and the requirements for patentability are reviewed. The option of keeping an invention as a trade secret rather than applying for a patent is presented. The paper also discusses the rationale behind the government’s change in its policy which permits exclusive licensing of public-owned patents. The author concludes that patents are not a barrier but a significant help in promoting technology transfer.     

Liability for failing to rescue

Should there be civil liability when a person who could easily and without risk rescue another fails to do so? It is argued that the failure to act does not cause the harm that follows, and that the misfeasance/nonfeasance distinction provides no basis for liability. In spite of this, it is maintained that there can sometimes be a duty to rescue, and even a right to be rescued, even in the absence of a voluntary undertaking or an explicit assumption of responsibility. There are convincing arguments for some sort of legal recognition of a duty to rescue, but these arguments do not support tort liability. Nor is a case for tort liability made with the argument that a growth of tort law in this direction would be compatible with the values most centrally involved in the division between torts and contracts. Furthermore, there is a case against tort liability — namely, that the purpose of tort liability is to compensate, that there are certain sorts of situations in which compensation is apposite, and that failure to rescue does not fit into these categories. Criminal liability is the appropriate way for the law to recognize a duty to rescue.