This study analyses the decision criteria for a specific form of reorganisation in a creditor-friendly bankruptcy system such as that of Austria. From a neoinstitutional perspective, we present different forms of bankruptcy law and the specifics of reorganisation in Austria. Next, we show several distinctive criteria and influencing factors for formal reorganisation and workouts. We group these factors into constitutions and institutional settings, process and handling, and implementation of the reorganisation. Using a sample of 411 survey responses from turnaround professionals, our empirical study analyses the decision criteria for a specific form of reorganisation. We apply a multivariate approach comprising two-sided paired samples Wilcoxon tests to assess the derived hypotheses and a hierarchical cluster analysis. Our results indicate significant differences in the valuation of the two forms: the turnaround professionals rate public perception much higher for out-of-court reorganisation, whereas legal certainty is rated significantly better for formal proceedings. Regarding process and handling, transparency and the handling of blocking positions are arguments for formal reorganisation, whereas flexibility is valuated better for workouts. In terms of implementation, respondents see advantages for out-of-court reorganisation, as it facilitates the implementation of both financial and operational measures. Taxation, the handling of blocking positions, and the improvement of public perception were identified as key development aspects for the legal framework conditions of the various reorganisation forms.

Epstein (Simple rules for a complex world, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1995) defended the superiority of simple legal rules over complex, human-designed regulations. Has Epstein's case for simple rules become obsolete with the arrival of artificial intelligence, and in particular machine learning (ML)? Can ML deliver better algorithmic rules than traditional simple legal rules? This paper argues that the answer to these question is "no" by building an argument based on three increasingly more serious barriers that ML faces to develop legal (or quasi-legal) algorithmic rules: data availability, the Lucas' critique, and incentive compatibility in eliciting information. Thus, the case for simple legal rules is still sound even in a world with ML.

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.

We analyse the recent policy decisions made by the European Central Bank and the national authorities related to capital and shareholders' remuneration aimed at promoting banking credit supply in COVID-19-afflicted economies. We forecast the impact of the regulatory decisions based on the empirical literature and discuss the factors that reduce the banks' incentives to expand their loan portfolios. We argue that the introduction of the dividend ban caused a surge in regulatory uncertainty and undermined banks' market valuation raising the expected funding costs and contributing to the banks' reluctance to make use of the capital buffers. We develop policy suggestions intended to mitigate this effect.

Public authorities in many jurisdictions are concerned about the proliferation of illegal content and products on online platforms. One often discussed solution is to make the platform liable for third parties' misconduct. In this paper, we first identify platform incentives to stop online misconduct in the absence of liability. Then, we provide an economic appraisal of platform liability that highlights the effects of a more stringent liability rule on several key variables such as prices, terms and conditions, business models, and investments. Specifically, we discuss the impact of the liability regime applying to online platforms on competition between them and the incentives of third parties relying on them. Finally, we analyze the potential costs and benefits of measures that have received much attention in recent policy discussions.

How should we think about crime deterrence in times of pandemics? The economic analysis of crime tells us that potential offenders will compare the costs and the benefits from crime and from innocence and then choose whichever option is more profitable. We must therefore ask ourselves how this comparison is affected by the outbreak of a pandemic and the policy changes which may accompany it, such as governmental restrictions, social distancing, and responses to economic crises. Using insights from law and economics, this paper investigates how the various components in the cost-benefit analysis of crime might change during a pandemic, focusing on Covid-19 as a test case. Building on classical theoretical models, existing empirical evidence, and behavioral aspects, the analysis reveals that there are many potentially countervailing effects on crime deterrence. The paper thus highlights the need to carefully consider which aspects are applicable given the circumstances of the pandemic, as whether crime deterrence will increase or decrease should depend on the strength of the effects at play.

From an epidemiological perspective, the COVID-19 pandemic is a public health crisis. From an economic perspective, it is an externality and a social cost. Strikingly, almost all economic policy to address the infection externality has been formulated within a Pigovian analysis of implicit taxes and subsidies directed by a social planner drawing on social cost-benefit analysis. In this paper we examine the alternative economic methodology of the externality. We seek to understand how an exchange-focused and institutional analysis provides a better understanding of how to minimise social cost. Our Coasean framework allows us to further develop a comparative institutional analysis of the pandemic response.

The COVID-19 pandemic has not only caused millions to die and even more to lose their jobs, it has also prompted more governments to simultaneously declare a state of emergency than ever before enabling us to compare their decisions more directly. States of emergency usually imply the extension of executive powers that diminishes the powers of other branches of government, as well as to the civil liberties of individuals. Here, we analyze the use of emergency provisions during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and find that it can be largely explained by drawing on political economy. It does, hence, not constitute an exception. We show that many governments have (mis-)used the pandemic as a pretext to curtail media freedom. We further show that executive decrees are considered as a substitute for states of emergency by many governments.

Commercial and social entrepreneurs are likely to help communities combat public health crises. Research on responses to pandemics has underappreciated the critical role of entrepreneurs. In the context of post-disaster response and recovery, entrepreneurs provide needed goods and services, repair and rebuild disrupted social networks, and can act as focal points for disaster survivors as they develop their plans to rebuild. During a pandemic, entrepreneurs perform similarly important economic and social functions. This article highlights these functions, including (1) providing the goods needed to survive and combat the pandemic, (2) performing the services needed so that people can stay productive and connected during the pandemic, and (3) acting as a source of community support and leadership. It also discusses how entrepreneurs are able to perform these roles despite operating in an environment that constricts the range and nature of entrepreneurial activity. Finally, this article describes a legal regime that will promote entrepreneurship during a pandemic.

We argue that institutions are bundles that involve trade-offs in the government's ability to provide public goods that affect public health. We hypothesize that the institutions underlying economic freedom affect the mix of diseases by reducing diseases of poverty relative to diseases of commerce (those associated with free movement of people, such as smallpox or COVID-19). We focus on smallpox and typhoid fever in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century in order to build on recent work that make arguments similar to ours, especially the framework Werner Troesken sets forth in . Our evidence shows that economic freedom, in multiple periods of time and settings prior to the eradication of smallpox in the second half of the twentieth century, reduced typhoid mortality but had no effect on smallpox deaths. The implication for COVID-19 is that the trade-off between fighting the pandemic and preserving economic freedom may not be too severe in the short run. However, in the long run, the wealth benefits from economic freedom are likely to be crucial in reducing vulnerability to diseases of commerce primarily from their impact on comorbidities (such as diabetes and heart disease). Thus, economic freedom is on balance good for public health, which suggests that it, while requiring trade-offs, might be the best institutional bundle for dealing with pandemics.

What is the tenet upon which the public policy of lockdown by fiat experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic is based on? The work approaches this question about the rationale of the mandatory shelter-in-place policy as an interpersonal exchange of rights, but where the exchange occurs coercively instead of voluntarily. It compares, in positive political economy terms, the normative principles of utilitarianism and Rawlsianism, and shows that lockdown by fiat is a policy that is closer to a maximin equity criterion rather than to a utilitarian one. The work moreover shows, also with the aid of a thought experiment and with factual applications, that the fiat redistribution of rights to liberty in favor of rights to health-from those least affected to those most affected by COVID-19-is, in the main, a policy choice that is to be expected under certain constraints.

Much political conflict in the world revolves around the issue of how much freedom to accord people. Liberal democracies are characterized by, e.g., the rule of law and a strong protection of civil rights, giving individuals a great deal of legally guaranteed freedom to lead their lives as they see fit. However, it is not known whether legal freedom suffices to make people satisfied with freedom. Our study explores that issue by relating seven indicators of legal freedom to the satisfaction people express with their freedom of choice. Using a sample of 133 countries over the period 2008-2018, and taking a panel-data approach, we find no robust baseline relationship. However, when exploring conditional associations by interacting the indicators with social trust, the rule of law is positively and increasingly related to satisfaction with freedom above and below a threshold level. Freedom of assembly is more positive for satisfaction with freedom the higher the GDP per capita and in democracies. Thus, for some types of legal freedom, formal legal institutions are complementary with culture, income and the political system in generating satisfaction with freedom.

This paper discusses the effects of one-off Motor Vehicle Registration Taxes (MVRT) and market concentration level on the profitability of multinational enterprises (MNEs) operating in the European Union motor vehicle industry. Our simple theoretical framework shows that firm profits depend on the demand function and therefore on taxes applied to prices. We overcome empirically the challenges of making informative theoretical predictions on the pass-through rate under imperfect competition. We find that MVRT,-both as ad valorem taxes and as specific taxes,-have a significant negative effect on MNEs' profitability. Our findings show a statistically significant positive effect of market concentration on profitability. Finally, our results suggest that the degree of competitiveness in the motor vehicle market moderates the effect of MVRT on firm profitability only in EU countries where the MVRT is an ad valorem tax, with the negative effect of the ad valorem MVRT becoming higher as the motor vehicle market becomes less competitive.

This essay examines, from a legal and economic perspective, the judicial response to rent controls in the EU focusing on three courts that operate at the fundamental rights and constitutional level: the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGE), and the Italian Constitutional Court. Based on an analysis of a sample of judicial decisions rendered over time, a convergent trend emerges: these Courts have recognized and effectively protected the landlord's property rights against rent controls that were disproportionate and could not ensure a reasonable return on investment. This trend is prominent in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR: the Strasbourg Court has contributed to reshaping the distribution of power between tenants and landlords, encouraging the transition of Eastern and Southern European Countries to the common European housing market. In both upholding and striking down rent control measures, judges generally take market value and the comparative reference price as the preferred benchmarks for fair rent price. A consumption-based and financial characterization of housing, coupled with the fundamental right to derive economic benefits as core elements of the right to property, underpin the legal reasoning of the three Courts.