IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/rlecon/v4y2008i1n4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Controlling Avoidance: Ex Ante Regulation Versus Ex Post Punishment

Author

Listed:
  • Tabbach Avraham D

    (Bar-Ilan University)

  • Nussim Jacob

    (Tel-Aviv University)

Abstract

Efforts to avoid punishment are socially wasteful. Not only do they limit the deterrent effect of punishment, but they may actually lead to the paradoxical result that more severe punishment for crime induces more crime. The law has therefore constantly attempted to deter avoidance efforts and has designed various enforcement measures for this purpose. This paper examines the effects of such measures on avoidance and crime. It distinguishes between two general policy tools: ex ante regulation (e.g., Pigouvian taxes) and ex post punishment of avoidance. The main results of this paper are that (1) ex ante regulation, if feasible, reduces the incentives to engage in avoidance and consequently in crime; whereas (2) ex post punishment of avoidance may induce more avoidance and more crime. The intuitive reason for the latter result is twofold: ex post punishment of avoidance increases not only the costs but also the benefits of avoidance; and avoidance and crime are generally complements. As the control of avoidance through regulation or punishment can be designed into the legal system, the results of this paper can guide policymaking. They suggest, for example, that recent trends to stiffen penalties for substantially obstructive acts might be counter productive, while imposing liability for avoidance efforts on third, economically-related parties such as lawyers and accountants may be productive in curtailing avoidance, since it acts as an ex ante regulation for the principal offender.

Suggested Citation

  • Tabbach Avraham D & Nussim Jacob, 2008. "Controlling Avoidance: Ex Ante Regulation Versus Ex Post Punishment," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 45-63, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:4:y:2008:i:1:n:4
    DOI: 10.2202/1555-5879.1178
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1555-5879.1178
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1555-5879.1178?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tim Friehe & Thomas J. Miceli, 2017. "On Punishment Severity and Crime Rates," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 464-485.
    2. Éric Langlais, 2010. "Les criminels aiment-ils le risque ?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 61(2), pages 263-280.
    3. Nussim, Jacob & Tabbach, Avraham D., 2009. "Deterrence and avoidance," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 314-323, December.
    4. Friehe, Tim, 2009. "Precaution v. avoidance: A comparison of liability rules," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(3), pages 214-216, December.
    5. Rosario Crinó & Giovanni Immordino & Salvatore Piccolo, 2021. "Criminal mobility, fugitives, and extradition rules," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 23(1), pages 69-104, February.
    6. Tim Friehe & Thomas J. Miceli, 2018. "On the role of the exclusionary rule for optimal law enforcement effort," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 20(5), pages 757-767, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:4:y:2008:i:1:n:4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.