Did you know that your browser is out of date?
For the best experience we recommend upgrading to the latest version of these supported browsers:
I wish to continue viewing on my unsupported browser
Study Shows Link Between Judges' Economics Training and the Likelihood of Appeal in Complex Antitrust Cases
28 May 2010
Findings by NERA Special Consultant Michael Baye and George Mason University's Joshua Wright to be Published in The Journal of Law and Economics
New York -- Decisions in antitrust litigation by "generalist" judges are more likely to be appealed than those by judges with training in basic economics, according to a study by professors Michael Baye and Joshua Wright. Professor Baye is a Special Consultant with NERA Economic Consulting and the Bert Elwert Professor of Business at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business. Professor Wright teaches at George Mason University’s School of Law and Department of Economics.
Although modern antitrust litigation often involves complex expert economic and econometric analysis, the study by Dr. Baye and Dr. Wright represents the first methodical analysis of the empirical effects of economic complexity or judges’ economic training on decision-making in antitrust cases.
Professors Baye and Wright examined data from antitrust litigation in federal district and administrative courts from the 1996-2006 period to test what impact economic training may have on the ability of generalist judges to successfully adjudicate antitrust cases. Their analysis took a variety of controls into account, including the type of case, the appellate circuit in which the case was litigated, the level of judicial experience with antitrust claims, judicial quality, and political ideology.
The study concluded that economic complexity and judges' economic training does have an impact on antitrust cases.
"Our analysis showed that decisions involving evaluation of complex economic evidence are significantly more likely to be appealed than other cases," said Dr. Baye. "We also found a correlation between judges’ economic training and appeals in antitrust cases; the decisions of judges who have basic economic training are much less likely to be appealed than those by generalist judges."
The results of the analysis by Dr. Baye and Dr. Wright will be published in a forthcoming issue of The Journal of Law and Economics.
About NERA
NERA Economic Consulting (www.nera.com) is a global firm of experts dedicated to applying economic, finance, and quantitative principles to complex business and legal challenges. For more than six decades, we have been creating strategies, studies, reports, expert testimony, and policy recommendations for government authorities and the world’s leading law firms and corporations. We bring academic rigor, objectivity, and real-world industry experience to issues arising from competition, regulation, public policy, strategy, finance, and litigation.
NERA’s clients value our ability to apply and communicate state-of-the-art approaches clearly and convincingly, our commitment to deliver unbiased findings, and our reputation for quality and independence. Our clients rely on the integrity and skills of our unparalleled team of economists and other experts backed by the resources and reliability of one of the world’s largest economic consultancies. Continuing our legacy as the first international economic consultancy, NERA serves clients from major cities across North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific.