Author Archive for robert-ahdieh
Can We Teach?
posted by Robert Ahdieh
Reading Alfred’s posts on choosing a law school, I got to thinking about the quality of teaching at any given school, as a factor in that choice, and of an article I read in last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, on Building a Better Teacher.
The piece describes, in essence, the effort to improve the quality of primary and secondary education in the United States, by more carefully/fully training teachers in how to teach. By contrast, it counsels, merely incentivizing teachers (whether with the carrot of merit pay, or the stick of dismissal/school closure) fails to get at the root of the problem. Teachers, thus, need to be taught how to teach.
The teacher trainer profiled, for example, suggests that the generally derided and dismissed issue of “classroom management” is actually foundational to whatever learning does (or does not) occur in the class. As the article puts it, “students can’t learn unless the teacher succeeds in capturing their attention and getting them to follow instructions.” (By way of empirics, I might note, the article cites data to certain that the students of the best teachers get 18 months of material, for each year in class, while those of the worse teachers get only 6 months!)
What about those of us in law school teaching, though? Can we teach? Is there any reason to believe that the skills that get us our teaching appointments are well correlated with teaching skills?
I’m doubtful there is, though I might perhaps be convinced otherwise. Even if there is some such correlation, however, wouldn’t it still be useful to think about relevant training in classroom instruction, for law students thinking about going into teaching – or perhaps at least for those who actually end up there? Isn’t that especially appropriate if, as the research reported in the article suggests, evidence of natural teaching “ability” aren’t highly correlated with student success?
One need not abandon a commitment to scholarship as the most critical metric in appointments, in promotion, and even in evaluating the overall “success” of a law professor, thus, to recognize that there are relevant skills to teaching – and perhaps to law teaching in particular – that we ought to know.
If so, how might we go about accomplishing as much? By having a teaching “track” in law school, which would include some training in teaching? Perhaps with some sort of intensive summer program, in which newly hired teachers would enroll for a time before embarking on their teaching careers?
No single solution would be perfect, of course. I’m reminded, though, of my complaints to a colleague, in my first year of teaching, that I wasn’t sure I was doing a particularly good job at teaching. “I’m sure they love you!” he responded. Perhaps they do, I remember thinking, but that need not mean I was doing a good job.
March 11, 2010 at 10:55 am
Posted in: Education, Law School (Teaching), Teaching, Uncategorized
Print This Post
2 Comments
Rising From the Ashes, Again
posted by Robert Ahdieh
More later on my quietude of the last week - including on the challenges (and wisdom…?) of making multiple law review submissions in a single season – but for now, an interesting post from the New York Times‘ Economix blog.
It’s not every day that Atlanta makes it into the Times. (I wasn’t quite sure the editors had heard of it!) A near-paean to it under the headline Betting on Atlanta was thus a welcome surprise. And coming, as it did, under the byline of Harvard economist Edward Glaeser- whose work I’d previously known only via his collaborations with Andrei Shleifer and the rest of the LLSV crowd on legal origins – was icing on the cake.
Beyond the gratification of my instincts that Atlanta has become a great city on many counts, including its diversity and integration, its embrace of globalization, its cuisine and arts scene, and the quality of its urban living more generally, though, a few points from Glaeser’s lengthy post particularly stood out.
One was the peculiarity of the city’s geography. Unlike most major metropolitan areas in the country, Atlanta does not sit on a significant waterway. It emerged in the mid-1800’s, instead, out of the railroad depot built at the intersection of a handful of significant train lines. (Hence its original name, Terminus.)
Even more interesting, I thought, was the strikingly high level of education in the city – a notable fact, given Georgia’s perennial lagging in many measures of primary and secondary school education. Between units of the University of Georgia, Georgia State, Morehouse, Spelman, Georgia Tech, Emory, and other colleges and universities, though, it turns out that nearly 43 percent of adults in the city have a college degree. Doesn’t sound like all that much? Compare it to 27 percent nationwide, and only 41 percent in the city of Boston.
Finally, there was Glaeser’s insight that a critical feature in Atlanta’s growth and success to date – and a promising indicator supporting his “bet” on Atlanta – was the availability of housing. Given no natural borders limiting the construction of new housing and, as Glaeser reports, fairly liberal zoning rules, housing prices could remain relatively low, even as the city experienced one of the largest population influxes of any city in the country over the last decade.
All told, these and other factors add up to Glaeser’s happy conclusion: “Smart money never bets against the ability of a huge concentration of smart people to weather an economic storm. Don’t count Atlanta out.”
March 11, 2010 at 4:27 am
Posted in: Uncategorized
Print This Post
2 Comments
The Globalization of Securities Regulation: Competition or Coordination?
posted by Robert Ahdieh
Thanks to Danielle, Dan, and entire Concurring Opinions team, for having me back for a return stint.
I write from the University of Cincinnati Corporate Law Center’s 23rd Annual Symposium, on the subject of The Globalization of Securities Regulation: Competition or Coordination?
Our host is Professor Barbara Black, and other panelists include Bill Bratton, Chris Brummer, Hannah Buxbaum, Eric Chaffee, Andrea Corcoran, Steve Davidoff, Jim Fanto, Robert Patterson, and my colleague, Fred Tung.
I mention all this because, for those who may be interested, the symposium is being webcast as I type (and listen to Hannah’s presentation, on The ‘Global Enterprise’ in Cross-Border Securities Litigation). You can find it here:
https://www.uc.edu/ucvision/event.aspx?eventid=245
And if you have questions you’d like raised, you can e-mail them to Barbara here: corporatelawsymposium@law.uc.edu.
Hope you can join the discussion!
March 5, 2010 at 9:08 am
Posted in: Accounting, International & Comparative Law, Securities Regulation
Print This Post
No Comments
Intersystemic Governance as the New Governance
posted by Robert Ahdieh
[A belated post, which I'm finally putting up, long after the final bell has tolled on my (enjoyable as ever!) visit...]
In a post a few weeks back, Mike Dorf cites ongoing debates over the appropriate place of Shari’a law within the British legal system, to highlight a broader phenomenon of interaction across legal regimes. As he constructs the settings of relevant interest:
A and B are interacting legal regimes, each claiming some authority to make binding norms for some of the same people; A claims that in case of clear conflict with B, A prevails; B claims that in cases of clear conflict, B prevails; although this looks like a recipe for eventual all-out conflict, A and B can co-exist indefinitely through a variety of mediating mechanisms.
At a certain level, this might be understood to describe the dynamic at work in any federal scheme of governance. As I see it, though, the critical question in these cases is how we think about patterns of overlapping authority across jurisdictional lines. In the conventional account of federalism – and perhaps the law generally – the motivating project might be seen as one of line-drawing. The law’s task is to demarcate distinct bounds of jurisdictional authority. In this way, it serves the purportedly salutary function of minimizing overlap, and therefore conflict. Dorf, by contrast, suggests the growing degree to which complexity, overlap, and conflict cannot be avoided. Rather, they must – and even should – be embraced.
As I have had occasion to describe the idea:
This [emerging] project lies not in line-drawing, distinguishing, or simplifying. To the contrary, it explores—and even encourages—overlap, interdependence, and attendant complexity. From this distinct regulatory perspective, the goal is not to identify the single regulatory actor best suited or most appropriately charged with responsibility for a given entity or subject matter. Rather, multiple regulators are embraced as having a shared—if both competing and cooperating—place in a more inclusive and all encompassing regulatory regime.
In emphasizing the growing importance of such patterns of interaction, I have been struck by the wide range of recent work that speaks – directly or indirectly – to such dynamics of engagement across regulatory regimes. This is evident, from even a cursory (and incomplete) listing of relevant work:
December 16, 2008 at 9:37 am
Posted in: Administrative Law
Print This Post
No Comments
The Dukes of “Hazard”
posted by Robert Ahdieh
As the number of bailouts, the scope of bailouts, and talk of further bailouts have all increased over the last month, culminating in yesterday’s announcement of yet another in the asserted “Mother of All Bailouts” series – of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, then of AIG, and now of Citigroup – one thing has been missing.
Modifying the title of Tom Lehrer’s fond recollection of Vice-President Humphrey, I’ve been wondering, “Whatever Became of Moral Hazard?”
Now no one would ever accuse me of being an empiricist, but this surely seemed a ripe question for quantitative study. Was it simply my imagination that no one seemed to be talking about the moral hazards attendant to young, newly appointed staff members doling out cash on the front steps of the Treasury Department? Perhaps my eyes were simply glazing over every time I came to the paragraph in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal pieces where they quoted some obscure academic economist, noting the risks attendant to bailouts?
Or perhaps not.
Consider the results of my exhaustive search for the term “moral hazard” in articles in Westlaw’s “USNEWS” database, of U.S. papers and news magazines, conducted yesterday morning:
November 25, 2008 at 8:43 am
Posted in: Current Events
Print This Post
No Comments
Head Counting on the U.S. Courts of Appeals
posted by Robert Ahdieh
Others have already commented on it (here and here), but I wanted to add my belated thoughts on the Wall Street Journal opinion piece on judicial appointments by Steve Calabresi, of some weeks back. In it, Calabresi outlines a true parade of horribles (including “the mass freeing of criminal defendants”) that might befall on the country, if Barack Obama were to win the presidency and make significant appointments to the U.S. Courts of Appeals. (He was writing the week before the election.)
What struck me more than Steve’s enumeration of dangers and threats, however, was an earlier comment in the piece.
After offering an audit of the membership on the D.C. Circuit by appointing president, and suggesting the likelihood that Obama will make a substantial number of appointments to that court, he states:
“The net result is that the legal left will once again have a majority on the nation’s most important regulatory court of appeals.”
And he continues, turning to the balance of the courts of appeals:
“The balance will shift as well on almost all of the 12 other federal appeals courts. . . . Circuit majorities are likely at stake in this presidential election for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals.”
I think my legal realist credentials are as good as the next guy, but what are we to make of such talk of “majorities” on the courts of appeals – as measured by the imprecise heuristic of appointing president, no less? Do federal court of appeals judges caucus by party – or even political preferences, for that matter? If so, who is the Democratic whip on the Second Circuit? On the Ninth!?!
I share much of the general sense of doubt about the possibility of judicial dispassion and neutrality, and about the notion of judges as simply “umpires.” I suspect we go much too far, however, in conceptualizing the collective decision-making of the courts of appeals – or even the Supreme Court, I suspect – in terms of voting majorities of one party versus the other.
Such an approach is not merely inaccurate, however, but also harmful to public perception of the courts – and of the law generally. Perhaps especially because it perpetuates itself.
If Steve can tell a story of threatened Democratic majorities on nine of the thirteen courts of appeals, thus, The New York Times can respond in kind, as it did:
“Republican-appointed judges, most of them conservatives, . . . control 10 of the 13 circuits, while judges appointed by Democrats have a dwindling majority on just one circuit.”
Not too sound too schoolmarm-y about it, but we really shouldn’t be talking this way.
November 21, 2008 at 7:33 am
Posted in: Articles and Books
Print This Post
2 Comments
A Cautionary Tale
posted by Robert Ahdieh
A perhaps cautionary tale for law professors considering the possibility of banning laptop computers from the classroom – let alone unexpectedly deviating from the norm, to direct students to close their laptops for a particular discussion.
November 21, 2008 at 6:36 am
Posted in: Law School (Teaching)
Print This Post
No Comments
Theories of the Fall
posted by Robert Ahdieh
I, for one, have never found the familiar “Merry Christmas!” – as distinct from the new-fangled “Happy Holidays!” – to be especially offensive. Further, I don’t doubt that an excess of euphemism can be debilitating of meaningful human discourse.
Perhaps The Wall Street Journal goes too far, however, in offering (and defending!) the proposition that this shift in usage helps to explain the financial crisis.
November 21, 2008 at 4:55 am
Posted in: Current Events
Print This Post
4 Comments
The Week That Was
posted by Robert Ahdieh
Looking back on what was, by all accounts, a historic week, a few moments stand out:
On the morning of the third presidential election day I was spending as an academic, I already knew something was afoot, when I found the quad at Columbia busy with activity – at 8 o’clock in the morning. Confirmation came as I crossed the quad to my office, overhearing not one, not two, but three cell phone conversations in which students were asking about, or reporting on, the length of the lines at their voting locations.
That evening, at the home of a Columbia Law colleague, those in attendance kept excusing themselves to the back room, to take congratulatory calls from friends and family overseas. One reported a brief voicemail they received from Europe: “Thank you!”
At the very end of the night, as I hailed a cab, I debated whether to try to catch a train back to Princeton, or spend the night in the city, given how late it was. I asked the young driver how long it would take to get to Penn Station, to see whether I would make the next train. “Everyone’s out in the street, so it may take a while. Where are you going?” Princeton, I told him. “I’ll take you!” No, no need to go all that way. “No, it’s Obama night! I want to take you!” I protested, but he insisted. “As long as you don’t mind that I yell “Obama!!!” out the window once in a while, let’s go.”
The next day, finally, I had lunch – as is the custom at the Institute for Advanced Study – with faculty members Joan Scott and Danielle Allen, emeritus professor Michael Walzer, and Sarah Hirschman, the wife of emeritus professor Albert O. Hirschman. Each wore a yellow smiley face sticker, distributed by the cafeteria’s sous chef. Perhaps more notably, one-by-one, each offered a report on their canvassing and phone banking work of the day before, for the Obama campaign.
Quite a historic week.
November 8, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Posted in: Current Events
Print This Post
8 Comments
Intersections of Religion and Governance
posted by Robert Ahdieh
I write with the latest in my series: “It’s Saturday, so I must be in…”
This Saturday, I’m in Washington, at a conference I helped organize at American University, on Exploring the Intersections of Religion and Governance: Past, Present, and Future.
Over the course of the day yesterday, and continuing today, the discussion has explored historical and comparative perspectives on the relationship of religion and governance, the relevance of religious communities to the pursuit of social and economic development, intersections of religious belief with the regulation of both climate change and corruption, and even the religious dimensions of intellectual property law. Speakers have included Arash Abizadeh, Abduh An-Na’im, Jeremy Gunn, David Hunter, and Layli Miller-Muro. All told – in my admittedly biased assessment – a fasinating conference!
Anyway, for those who may be interested in questions of law and religion, the conference is being webcast, and will also be available in video format for viewing/downloading later this coming week, at http://www.wcl.american.edu/secle/video.cfm.
October 11, 2008 at 10:58 am
Posted in: Religion
Print This Post
2 Comments
When Judges Make Foreign Policy
posted by Robert Ahdieh
After carrying it around for a week, I finally had a chance to read Noah Feldman’s fascinating recent piece in The New York Times Magazine – “When Judges Make Foreign Policy”. Provocative as always, Noah offers a unique positive and normative account of the Supreme Court’s engagement with international norms.
In Noah’s view, the Court does well to modulate (as it historically has) its receptivity to international law, in accordance with relevant geopolitical context. At the moment, thus, when the United States’ long-time status as the preeminent transnational advocate of the “Rule of Law” is in question, heightened judicial compliance with international law is in order. At other times, it will likely be less so. Hence, the notion of judges “making foreign policy”.
Fascinating as it is, however, I do not propose to take up this analysis – a kind of “hydraulic” approach to the Court’s engagement with international norms – here. For the moment, rather, I write only a challenge a handful of Noah’s points – three, in particular.
To begin, there is his – admittedly quite common – equivalence of “sovereignist” resistance to international law with the defense of democracy. To quote:
[T]he constitutional principle here [i.e., in the “conservative vision” of resistance to international law] is . . . one that most liberals also fully embrace: namely, the principle of democracy. . . . International law, as even its staunchest defenders must acknowledges, often fails to accord with democratic principle. Such law is not passed by a democratically elected Congress and signed by a democratically elected president.
I am doubtful that this simple account of the sovereigntist claim, however, can get us very far. I do not, to be clear, dispute the validity of sovereignist claims across the board. The assertion of sovereignty may well constitute an effective argument against the domestic application of international law in many respects. But I do not believe that assertion can be equated with democracy.
October 10, 2008 at 7:58 am
Posted in: International & Comparative Law
Print This Post
No Comments
Socializing States
posted by Robert Ahdieh
This past Saturday, I had the pleasure of spending the day at Temple Law School [not Tulane, Dave...], for what proved to be a fascinating workshop. Together with Jaya and other famous figures of the legal blogosphere – Duncan Hollis, Peggy McGuinness, Deb Pearlstein, Kim Scheppele, Peter Spiro, and David Zaring – as well as a stellar group of other legal academics and social scientists, we gathered to discuss a fascinating book manuscript by Ryan Goodman & Derek Jinks, entitled Socializing States: Promoting Human Rights Through International Law.
In the manuscript, Ryan and Derek draw on their prior work to offer an account of “acculturation” as a distinct mechanism by which norms are disseminated transnationally. Alongside more familiar patterns of coercion and persuasion, they suggest a tendency of states to align their behavior with common norms and practices, even where the latter are neither forced upon them by their material interests, nor accepted/internalized on the merits.
Obviously, a fascinating argument, which made for a rich discussion. As much as anything else, though, I write to highlight the format, which I thought made for a productive day. Each participant submitted written comments on the manuscript in advance, such that Ryan and Derek could comment on them as they chose, and we participants could effectively build on the comments offered by others.
This made for what I thought was a much closer analysis and critique than might otherwise have been accomplished. Further to that end, we also adopted the practice commonly credited to Mark Tushnet’s “conlaw schmooze,” in which each commenter chooses whom to call on for the next comment, rather than having a moderator maintain a queue, with its sometimes choppy quality.
In any case, I thought the program covered a lot of territory, in ways that might be well worth replicating, in other gatherings intended to explore on a particular manuscript or work-in-progress. I’ve already proposed that Emory think about developing some similar series of events.
October 7, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Posted in: International & Comparative Law
Print This Post
No Comments
A Lone Voice in the Wilderness
posted by Robert Ahdieh
Last Friday, the New York Times reported on the SEC’s 2004 change in the net capital rule – to exempt the brokerage units of the nation’s largest investment banks from existing limitations on their outstanding debt. This decision, in turn, was keyed to the SEC’s (recently suspended) “voluntary supervision” program for those banks.
As described by the Times, the SEC’s April 28, 2004 decision – taken at the strong insistence of Hank Paulson (then of Goldman Sachs) and the heads of the other major investment banks – has a real cloak and dagger quality to it: A brief hearing. Few attendees. Nervous laughter. And – I’m not kidding – it all happens in the basement.
More interesting for me, though, was the article’s reference to the sole dissenting comment submitted to the SEC, by Leonard D. Bole – “a software consultant and expert on risk management.” Writing from Indiana, Mr. Bole questioned the wisdom of relying on the banks’ own risk simultation models, which had previously proven inadequate to prevent the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management and Black Monday, in October 1987.
But he was ignored.
This got me thinking about the individual (vs. organizational) comments I’ve seen submitted in notice and comment rulemaking processes over the years – comments I commonly wrote off as the work of crackpots with too much time on their hands.
For the most part, I suspect, my assessment was fairly accurate. After all, who keeps up with proposed rulemaking notices in the Federal Register? If there’s occasional a Bole in the bunch, though, perhaps the comments might deserve more sustained attention. At a minimum, we might consider some procedural mechanism – premised on a precautionary principle of sorts – by which objections to proposed rule changes, whatever their source, must be considered and perhaps even explicitly addressed.
Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but if foresight occasionally comes even close, it might be well worth our investment in it.
October 6, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Posted in: Administrative Law
Print This Post
2 Comments
It’s the Hormones, Stupid
posted by Robert Ahdieh
On NPR this morning, reference was made to an interesting study linking testosterone levels and the (relative) success of male securities traders. I see that Deven knew of this long ago, when the study first came out. Today’s report, though, emphasized the downside of the relevant “exuberance,” as perhaps suggested by the persistent market distress, even after passage of the recent bailout package. Yet further evidence that women should probably run the world.
October 6, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Posted in: Current Events
Print This Post
No Comments
Humble Hopes and Insane Idealism
posted by Robert Ahdieh
On Friday night, I had the pleasure to hear Cory Booker – friend and law school classmate (of a number of the illustrious permabloggers gathered here) – speak on the theme above: “Humble Hopes and Insane Idealism”. It was the third of a trilogy of lectures in the Toni Morrison Lectures series, which Cory was selected to give at Princeton this year.
Cory, of course, is now the mayor of Newark and, by all accounts, a rising political star. What struck me most in watching and listening to him, though, even after a ten year hiatus, was how much he was the same guy who lived a few doors away from Deven and me in our 1L year, at Mansfield Apartments in New Haven. And a good and genuine guy, at that.
His remarks were impressive, even by the standard of Princeton lectures and popular politicians. Even as he spoke to the state of our politics and the ongoing economic crisis, he weaved in talk of Don Quixote and Pericles, the evolution of urban architecture, and the critical need for love – and not of the romantic variety – in the continued “journey of America’s spirit”.
Like many (perhaps particularly among practitioners of law), I have come to view politics, its practitioners, and our political life as a whole, with a fairly jaded eye. Talk of “hope”, “insane idealism”, and a “journey” of the spirit – let alone of “love”, simply gets filtered out, as empty words, to be written off as the pretty words of someone who wants to keep his job.
Listening to Cory, though, something was different: It was clear that he really meant it. He really believed that “love” mattered to our political life.
And as I watched the crowd – an educated, successful bunch likely to be as cynical as the next guy – it was clear that they wanted to believe it too. And, abused though I may be for it, as I listened, I began to believe it as well. Perhaps, I wondered, we might do well to give hope, idealism, and perhaps even love a chance.
Perhaps it might do our political life some good.
October 5, 2008 at 10:15 am
Posted in: Current Events
Print This Post
No Comments
Deregulation’s Thermidor?
posted by Robert Ahdieh
Perhaps chastened by Senator McCain’s earlier call for him to be fired [sic: to submit his resignation], SEC Chair Christopher Cox seems to have decided last week that some preemptive strike was in order. On Friday, with little fanfare, Cox announced the end of the SEC’s four-year experiment with “voluntary supervision” of Wall Street’s (former) investment banks. In doing so, Cox bluntly confessed that “[t]he last six months have made it abundantly clear that voluntary regulation does not work.”
At least as significant as the mothballing of this particular initiative might be the issuance of such a statement by Cox, among the leading architects – and boosters – of deregulation during his fifteen years in Congress.
Surely it remains early for post-mortems on the de-regulatory state that has arguably been the dominant regulatory project of the last three decades. But is it possible that between the striking explosion in the size of the federal government over the last eight years, and the chaos that deregulation has recently wrought on Wall Street, we’re reaching the end of the end of “the era of big government“?
October 2, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Posted in: Administrative Law
Print This Post
No Comments
All Gramm and No Leach?
posted by Robert Ahdieh
Amidst the financial crisis, former Senator Phil Gramm has received a good drubbing in the press for his top billing on the legislation often claimed – perhaps inaccurately – to have laid the groundwork for Wall Street’s recent collapse: the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The latter, of course, famously repealed the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act and its wall of separation between investment and commercial banking.
By contrast, little criticism seems to have been directed at former Congressman Jim Leach (R-Iowa), long-time chair of the Banking Committee, and lead sponsor of the legislation in the House.
At first glance, one might credit this discrepancy to Gramm’s prominent role in Senator McCain’s presidential campaign. But Leach has arguably been no less important a figure in the present election cycle, as one of the two most prominent Republicans (along with former Senator Lincoln Chafee) to formally endorse Senator Obama’s candidacy – as well as a primetime speaker at the Democratic National Convention.
Various other factors might help to explain the relative focus on Gramm versus Leach: Gramm is a sharply polarizing political figure, while Leach is almost academic in his public demeanor. Gramm has been a far more visible surrogate for his candidate than Leach for his. And, of course, Gramm called us “a nation of whiners,” while Leach has managed to avoid such gaffes.
Most important, though, may be the relevant context: Gramm was a central player in the broad advance of deregulatory initiatives in the 1980s and 1990s. A former academic, he played an influential role in advancing that agenda, as an evangelist, as much as anything else. In a sense, then, critiques of Gramm-Leach-Bliley might properly – and far more significantly – be understood as wholesale critiques of the program of deregulation, a program far more closely associated with Senator Gramm than Congressman Leach.
And, in case you were wondering, Bliley really has disappeared…
October 1, 2008 at 6:46 am
Posted in: Current Events
Print This Post
4 Comments
The Roundtable
posted by Robert Ahdieh
I haven’t listened to all of it, but the Yale School of Management’s recent roundtable on the bailout has a good collection of folks, including Bill Donaldson, Nancy Peretsman, Steve Schwarzman, and Robert Shiller.
Of course, some of it is already ancient history, with a very busy week having passed since.
September 30, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Posted in: Current Events
Print This Post
No Comments
The Way Back…
posted by Robert Ahdieh
Some CoOp guest bloggers are invited back as permabloggers.
Some return for an encore, to report on some relevant research project they have underway.
Yet others return, to address some current event falling within their particular area of expertise.
And then there’s me.
In sharp contrast to my predecessors, I’ve been called back to apologize.
That’s right. On the advice of its over-staffed Office of General Counsel, Concurring Opinions LLC has asked me to return, to apologize for this.
Dave’s recent post was kind enough not to dwell on my brief report of the now-renounced Temple Law Review [Update: Make that the TULANE Law Review] article referenced therein, which attempted to link the voting records of Louisiana Supreme Court justices with campaign contributions from relevant litigants and their lawyers. Yet there it remained in the CoOp archives – unrepudiated.
Until now.
Without equivocation, then, let me say: I renounce that post. I regret that post. And I apologize for that post.
The authors of the article were wrong. The post was wrong. And I was wrong.
There. Lawsuit averted.
Any lessons to be learned from the experience? Four come to mind, fairly quickly:
September 24, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Posted in: Empirical Analysis of Law
Print This Post
4 Comments
The (Misunderstood) Genius of American Corporate Law
posted by Robert Ahdieh
In case it might be of interest, I wanted to share the abstract of a new article I’ve just finished, and submitted to the mysterious black box that is the law review selection process. The full paper is posted here.
In essence, the article challenges the conventional rhetoric of the corporate literature, which cites federalism as “the genius of American corporate law” – an engine of efficiency, motivating a race (or at least a leisurely walk) to the top. Others have dissented from this prevailing wisdom, of course, variously suggesting it is wrong as to either the vitality or the direction of the promised race (i.e., whether there is a race, and where it’s leading us). Upon closer reflection, however, such critiques are too forgiving. At least on its face, the conventional account misunderstands the basic question; its answer, as such, is not even wrong.
My critique, then, does not simply weigh in on the never-ending debate over a race to the top versus the bottom in corporate law. Instead, I highlight a fundamental flaw in the discourse behind the debate. Most critically, I decry the literature’s all but universal linkage of corporate law’s central goal – efficient regulation of the separation of ownership and control – with the central element of its institutional design – federalism and resulting state charter competition. In place of such linkage, I suggest an alternative account of the role of federalism in American corporate governance. This account identifies a distinctive purpose for federalism in corporate governance, highlights particular metrics of its efficiency, and encourages a reinvigorated study of institutional design in corporate law.
The full abstract is beneath the fold.
March 14, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Posted in: Corporate Law
Print This Post
No Comments
