Accuracy Versus Falsification Costs: The Optimal Amount of Evidence Under Different Procedures

Posted: 13 Apr 2009

See all articles by Winand Emons

Winand Emons

University of Bern - Department of Economics; Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)

Claude Fluet

Université Laval

Multiple version iconThere are 3 versions of this paper

Date Written: May 2009

Abstract

An arbiter can decide a case on the basis of his priors or he can ask for further evidence from the two parties to the conflict. The parties may misrepresent evidence in their favor at a cost. The arbiter is concerned about accuracy and low procedural costs. When both parties testify, each of them distorts the evidence less than when they testify alone. When the fixed cost of testifying is low, the arbiter hears both, for intermediate values one, and for high values no party at all. The arbiter's ability to remain uninformed as well as sequential testifying makes it more likely that the arbiter requires evidence. (JEL D82, K41, K42)

Suggested Citation

Emons, Winand and Fluet, Claude-Denys, Accuracy Versus Falsification Costs: The Optimal Amount of Evidence Under Different Procedures (May 2009). The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, Vol. 25, Issue 1, pp. 134-156, 2009, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1372572 or http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewm046

Winand Emons (Contact Author)

University of Bern - Department of Economics ( email )

Schanzeneckstrasse 1
Postfach 8573
CH-3001 Bern
Switzerland
+41 31 631 3922 (Phone)
+41 31 631 3783 (Fax)

HOME PAGE: http://staff.vwi.unibe.ch/emons

Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)

London
United Kingdom

Claude-Denys Fluet

Université Laval ( email )

2214 Pavillon J-A. DeSeve
Quebec, Quebec G1K 7P4
Canada
1-418-656-2131, ext 3290 (Phone)

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
270
PlumX Metrics