Abstract
We study whether the joint adoption of ex-ante regulation and ex-post liability leads to a higher level of welfare in a setting in which firms invest resources to develop an innovative product that can have negative social repercussions. We allow for firm-regulator corruption and compare two alternative regulatory regimes: lenient authorization and strict authorization. Corruption favors strict authorization and strengthens the case for making firms immune from ex-post liability so as to encourage ex-ante investment. By contrast, when lenient authorization is adopted, firms should not be insulated from liability. Hence, liability should be more severe when corruption is less common.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call