MPI Research Seminar 2018/2019

On Mondays the seminar takes place between 4 and 5 pm, on Wednesdays between 5 and 6 pm.

Venue of the seminar:
Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods
Kurt-Schumacher Str. 10
53113 Bonn
The seminar room is located on the ground floor/first floor.

December 12, 2018 - 10:00
Michel Maréchal
University of Zurich
Civic Honesty Around the Globe
December 12, 2018 - 17:00
Hannah Schildberg-Hörisch
Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE)
Who should benefit from affirmative action? Ability, effort and discrimination as justifications for quota rules
December 17, 2018 - 16:00
Holger Spamann
Harvard Law School
The ICTY Experiment: A Triple-Use Study on Legal Reasoning
(Holger Spamann, Lars Klöhn, Richard Kim, Pavlos Protopapas, Christophe Jamin, Vik Khanna, Zhuang Liu, Pavan Mamidi, Alexander Morell, Ivan Reidel) In the lab, we gave 331 real judges from seven major jurisdictions (US, Argentina, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India) 55 minutes to decide whether to affirm or reverse the conviction in an international criminal appeals case, and to provide brief reasons; we also asked the appropriate prison sentence. We gave the judges fictitious briefs and real legal materials (trial judgment, statute, precedent). We utilize this setting for three simultaneous studies: 1) “Law Matters?” Experiment: In 2×3 randomized experiment, we assigned each judge (i) either a sympathetic or an unsympathetic defendant, and (ii) a precedent strongly favoring, strongly disfavoring, or weakly favoring reversal. Only factor (i) (sympathy) has a detectable effect. 2) “Comparative Judicial Reasoning” Observational Study: By tracking the judges’ use of materials in 10-second increments, we trace out the judges’ internal thought processes, and find no detectable patterns by nationality or legal family. Nor do we find any difference in the effect of precedent between common and civil law judges. Only judges’ written reasons conform to the clichés about their jurisdictions. 3) Replication of Judicial Anchoring in a More Realistic Setting: We confirm the findings from simpler settings that judges’ sentencing is subject to anchoring on a meaningless number in a technical explanation of the sentencing task.
January 9, 2019 - 17:00
Nava Ashraf
LSE London School of Economics
January 16, 2019 - 17:00
Achim Wambach
January 23, 2019 - 17:00
Johannes Abeler
University of Oxford
January 30, 2019 - 17:00
Fabian Kosse
University of Bonn
February 6, 2019 - 17:00
Marco Piovesan
University of Copenhagen
April 3, 2019 - 17:00
Stefan Trautmann
University of Heidelberg
April 4, 2019 - 09:00
April 10, 2019 - 17:00
Michael Kirchler
Universität Innsbruck
May 8, 2019 - 17:00
Michal Bauer / Julie Chytilová
CERGE-EI / Charles University, Prague
May 15, 2019 - 09:00
June 5, 2019 - 17:00
Uwe Sunde
June 12, 2019 - 17:00
Iwan Barankay
Wharton University of Pennsylvania