Is Inheritance Morally Distinctive?

This paper examines a rarely-discussed argument for the right to bequeath wealth. This argument, popular among libertarians, asserts that opposition to the practice of inheritance is prone to over-generalize, such that opponents of inheritance cannot avoid condemning other uses of private property, like gift-giving. The argument is motivated by an interesting methodological claim, namely, that the morality of bequest ought to be evaluated from the perspective of the donor, and not evaluated in ways that invoke the effects of bequest on the distribution of wealth. This paper argues that this donor-centric approach ultimately favors restricting the right of bequest. Specifically, I maintain that bequest generally carries a lower opportunity cost than other uses of property. Accordingly, inheritance tax is less coercive than other taxes, and bequest is less obviously as generous an act as gift giving. While the arguments made here will encourage traditional opponents of inheritance (such as egalitarians), I also suggest why they might be welcomed by at least some types of libertarian.     

Professor Skinner's Visions

Skinner, Q. (2002) Visions of Politics , Volume I: Regarding Method . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skinner, Q. (2002) Visions of Politics , Volume II: Renaissance Virtues . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skinner, Q. (2002) Visions of Politics , Volume III: Hobbes and Civil Science . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.     

Corporations in Court: Big Business Litigation in U. S. Federal Courts, 1971–1991

This article provides an overview of federal litigation involving the largest 2,000 U. S. corporations over the period 1971–91. Reporting from a unique data set of the authors'construction, it finds that althugh the aggregate volume of business litigation grew during the 1970s and early 1980s, it has actually been declining in recent years in all major categories of cases; business-related litigation is heavily concentrated, with an extremely limited number of business "mega-litigants" accounting for most of the activity; this concentration is particularly evident in tort, with the result that the tort trend line outside the concentration is actually flat or declining; a good deal of the growth in litigation outside the tort area can be attributed to business itself; and big business wins overwhelmingly, as plaintiff and defendant, in cases that involve it. The general applicability of these findings is limited by the data's restriction to federal court litigation and the structure of the Integrated Federal Court Data Base from which the authors'data set was constructed. This granted, the report is by far the most comprehensive treatment of U. S. big business litigation to date, and its findings are strikingly at odds with the premises of much current policy discussion.     

The consequences of respondent attrition in panel studies: A simulation based on the Rochester youth development study

Subject attrition is a potentially serious threat to the validity of inferences drawn from panel studies of delinquency and drug use. Prior assessments of this issue produce somewhat conflicting results, with some finding that respondents who leave the panel have higher rates of delinquency and drug use than those who remain, while other studies report little or no differential attrition. Despite these findings, there has been virtually no examination of the extent to which respondent attrition can bias substantive findings in panel studies of delinquency and drug use. The present article addresses this issue by simulating higher levels of attrition in an ongoing panel study that has a low rate of attrition and little differential attrition. It finds that failure to include more elusive respondents (those who are more mobile) would bias estimates of prevalence and frequency of delinquency and drug use as well as results from basic regression analyses. Failure to include less cooperative respondents (those who require more contacts) produces similar, but somewhat smaller, differences. The methodological implications of the results are discussed.