
doi: 10.1086/505053
In this paper we provide a strategic explanation for the spontaneous convergence of legal rules that nevertheless, in many instances, falls short of unification across jurisdictions. We identify a free-riding problem and discuss its implications for legal integration. We argue that countries hesitate to adapt their laws to those of another jurisdiction because they hope to free ride on efforts toward convergence. Unification (by transplant) and harmonization (by convention) of legal rules emerge as obvious corrective interventions to a coordination failure, thus solving the free-riding problem. However, unification and harmonization could also be serious policy mistakes either because convergence is absent owing to very high costs of importing and adjustment or owing to agency costs. © 2006 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
game theory; harmonization; K00; legal transplant, 330, Law, jel: jel:C70
game theory; harmonization; K00; legal transplant, 330, Law, jel: jel:C70
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 36 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
