IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/9335.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Minimum Asset Requirements

Author

Listed:
  • Steven Shavell

Abstract

Requirements that parties have assets of at least a minimum level in order to participate in an activity are frequently imposed. A principal rationale for minimum asset requirements is considered in this article potential injurers have stronger incentives to prevent harm, or not to engage in harmful activities, provided that they have at least the required level of assets at stake if they are sued for causing harm. The optimal minimum asset requirement generally reflects a tradeoff between this advantage and the disadvantage that some parties with assets below a required level ought to engage in the activity (because the benefits they would obtain exceed the expected harm they would cause). Additionally, it is emphasized that minimum asset requirements are socially desirable only when the victims of harm are not customers of firms. When victims of harm are customers of firms, minimum asset requirements are socially undesirable.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven Shavell, 2002. "Minimum Asset Requirements," NBER Working Papers 9335, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:9335
    Note: LE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w9335.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. T. Randolph Beard, 1990. "Bankruptcy and Care Choice," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(4), pages 626-634, Winter.
    2. Shavell, S., 1986. "The judgment proof problem," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 45-58, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Steven Shavell, 2004. "Minimum Asset Requirements and Compulsory Liability Insurance As Solutions to the Judgment-Proof Problem," NBER Working Papers 10341, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Francisco Ramos Romeu, 2010. "An economic theory of the regulation of preliminary measures," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 267-300, December.
    3. Dari-Mattiacci, Giuseppe & De Geest, Gerrit, 2006. "When will judgment proof injurers take too much precaution?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 336-354, September.
    4. Jacob Julien, 2021. "The (Mixed) Effects of Minimum Asset Requirements When There is a Possibility of Technological Change," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 17(1), pages 167-191, March.
    5. Juan José Ganuza & Fernando Gómez, 2003. "Optimal negligence rule under limited liability," Economics Working Papers 759, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised May 2004.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yeon‐Koo Che & Kathryn E. Spier, 2008. "Strategic judgment proofing," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(4), pages 926-948, December.
    2. Gérard Mondello & Evens Salies, 2016. "Tort law under oligopolistic competition," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03459225, HAL.
    3. Gérard Mondello, 2012. "Strict Liability, Capped Strict Liability, and Care Effort under Asymmetric Information," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 168(2), pages 232-251, June.
    4. Gérard Mondello, 2013. "Ambiguous Beliefs on Damages and Civil Liability Theories"," Post-Print halshs-00929948, HAL.
    5. van 't Veld, Klaas & Shogren, Jason F., 2012. "Environmental federalism and environmental liability," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 105-119.
    6. Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci & Gerrit De Geest, 2005. "Judgment Proofness under Four Different Precaution Technologies," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 161(1), pages 38-56, March.
    7. Bidénam Kambia-Chopin, 2010. "Environmental risks, the judgment-proof problem and financial responsibility," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 77-87, October.
    8. Mondello, Gérard, 2012. "La responsabilité environnementale des prêteurs : difficultés juridiques et ensemble des possibles," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 88(2), pages 257-278, Juin.
    9. van 't Veld, Klaas, 2006. "Hazardous-industry restructuring to avoid liability for accidents," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 297-322, September.
    10. Thomas J. Miceli & Kathleen Segerson, 2001. "Should Victims of Exposure to a Toxic Substance Have an Independent Claim for Medical Monitoring?," Working papers 2002-41, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics, revised Jan 2002.
    11. Kim, Chulyoung & Koh, Paul S., 2019. "Minimum Asset and Liability Insurance Requirements on Judgment-Proof Individuals When Harm is Endogenous," Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, Hitotsubashi University, vol. 60(2), pages 141-161, December.
    12. Charreire, Maxime & Langlais, Eric, 2021. "Should environment be a concern for competition policy when firms face environmental liability?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    13. Tim Friehe, 2008. "On judgment proofness in the case of bilateral harm," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 175-185, October.
    14. Dari-Mattiacci, Giuseppe & De Geest, Gerrit, 2006. "When will judgment proof injurers take too much precaution?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 336-354, September.
    15. Julien Jacob & Sandrine Spaeter, 2016. "Large-Scale Risks and Technological Change: What About Limited Liability?," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 18(1), pages 125-142, February.
    16. G.G.A. de Geest & G. Dari Mattiacci, 2005. "Soft Regulators, tough judges," Working Papers 05-06, Utrecht School of Economics.
    17. Helm, Carsten, 2008. "How liable should an exporter be?: The case of trade in hazardous goods," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 263-271, December.
    18. Giuseppe Dari‐Mattiacci & Barbara M. Mangan, 2008. "Disappearing Defendants versus Judgment‐Proof Injurers," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 75(300), pages 749-765, November.
    19. Thomas J. Miceli & Kathleen Segerson & Suo Wang, 2015. "Products Liability When Consumers Vary In Their Susceptibility To Harm And May Misperceive Risk," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 33(3), pages 468-476, July.
    20. Thomas J. Miceli & Kathleen Segerson, 2005. "Do Exposure Suits Produce a "Race to File"? An Economic Analysis of a Tort for Risk," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(3), pages 613-627, Autumn.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • G28 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • K13 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Tort Law and Product Liability; Forensic Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nbr:nberwo:9335. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.