Shavell (2005) studied the optimality of minimum asset requirements within a frame-work in which individuals can influence the probability of an accident. We reinvestigate Shavell's model for the opposite accident scenario, in which individuals can influence the magnitude of harm, and find different policy implications. In particular, we show that it could be optimal to completely ban judgment-proof individuals from participating in a potentially harmful activity. We alsoexamine the effect of liability insurance, and find that regulatory authorities should tighten standards relative tothe pure asset requirement and that liability insurance increases social welfare.
Bibliographical notePublisher Copyright:
© 2019 Hitotsubashi University.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Business, Management and Accounting(all)
- Economics and Econometrics