Governmental liability for breach of contract

Government contracts are subject to a number of legal rulesthat have no private sector analogues and that have receivedvirtually no attention from law and economics scholar. Thisarticle explores these rules from an economic perspective, withspecial attention to the leading modern case on the subject,United States v. Winstar. The analysis emphasizes a number ofdifferences between governmental and private actors that haveimportant implications for the wisdom of applying conventionalbreach of contract remedies to the government. These differencesafford plausible efficiency justifications, in our view, formany of the most important doctrines governing government contracts.Some of these doctrines help to impede the use of long-termcontracts to insulate inefficient rent-seeking arrangementsagainst subsequent attack, some seem to prevent the governmentfrom inefficiently contracting away its ability to respond tonew information, and others seem to work a sensible allocationbetween the government and private contractors of the risk thatgovernment may change its policies. Not all doctrines and decisionscan be justified in this fashion, however, and we do not meanto claim that the existing body of law is in any sense optimal.Indeed, the Winstar decision itself seems quite mistaken froman economic standpoint. The considerations that we develop haveimplications for a number of related legal issues. Not all ofthese implications are developed here, but we do consider modernlitigation under the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitutionas well as the recent academic debate about the wisdom of retroactivetaxation.     

The antidepressant debate and the balanced placebo trial design: an ethical analysis

There is ongoing debate about whether randomized, placebo-controlled trials under a double-blind have reliably established the pharmacological efficacy of antidepressants. Numerous meta-analyses of antidepressant efficacy trials, e.g., Kirsch et al. [Kirsch, I., Moore, T. J., Scoboria, A., & Nicholls, S. (2002). The emperor's new drugs: An analysis of antidepressant medication data submitted to the U.S. food and drug administration. Prevention and Treatment, 5, Article 23. (Retrieved July 19, 2007 from http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5)], have shown a modest drug-placebo difference but methodological problems with standard trial design preclude a definitive conclusion that this difference results from specific biological effects of antidepressants or the nonspecific factors that have not been adequately excluded. Standard trial design assumes the additivity thesis of pharmacological efficacy, being the assumption that the specific or "true" magnitude of the pharmacological effect is limited to the difference between the drug and placebo responses in a standard trial. If the drug effects are as small as these meta-analyses suggest, then their clinical effectiveness is questionable. If the drug effects are actually larger but masked by placebo effects, then the additivity thesis is not valid and we risk false negative results with standard trial design. Kirsch et al. propose an alternative, four arm balanced placebo trial design (BPTD) that can accurately test the additivity thesis. The BPTD uses antidepressants, active placebos and the intentional deception of research subjects. My focal question is whether the BPTD is ethically defensible. I will explore two objections that can be raised against it: 1) lying to BPTD research subjects violates their autonomy and exploits their illness and 2) the BPTD may not enable us to test the additivity thesis with accuracy, i.e., it may contribute to the masking of drug effects that it aims to avoid. I argue that these objections support the conclusion that the BPTD is ethically indefensible.     

The South African Bantu Education Act

Dr. Shepherd has been Principal of Lovedale, the famous Churchof Scotland African institution, since 1942. He went there aschaplain in 1927 after serving as a missionary in Tembuland.He went to South Africa in 1919 and is a distinguished authorityon Bantu education. He is a doctor of divinity of Edinburghand a doctor of literature of Witwatersrand University.     

The Legal Factor in a Changing Africa

The address which follows was given before a joint meeting ofthe Royal African Society and the Royal Empire Society on July22, 1955. The meeting was arranged to coincide with the Commonwealthand Empire Legal Conference, and Colonel Charles Ponson by,T.D., D.L., presided.     

Educational Vouchers: The Case for Public Choice Reconsidered

Parental choice and operational efficiency are the key features proponents use to promote the desirability of educational voucher programs. The argument is that educational vouchers increase competition among schools by allowing parents the freedom to choose which schools their children attend. In turn, competition improves the performance of individual schools. This article argues that, as currently put forth, the case for vouchers minimizes the special position of public schools with respect to their equity goals. Equity, arguably, has been one of the most significant tenets of public education policy in the last half-century. Moreover, vouchers have significant hidden costs that could compromise any efficiency.