An Expert-Sourced Measure of Judicial Ideology – Kevin Cope (University of Virginia)

In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Kevin Cope (University of Virginia) discusses his paper "An Expert-Sourced Measure of Judicial Ideology" with Benjamin Kohler (ETH Zurich). In his work, Kevin Cope investigates how to measure judicial ideology and how this construct influences legal decisions. He introduces the Jurist-Derived Judicial Ideology Scores (JuDJIS), a new metric based on over 10,000 written evaluations of judges by thousands of jurists collected over three decades. The paper shows that these ideology estimates outperform existing measures in predicting appellate decisions. This innovative dataset opens up new possibilities for empirical research in judicial politics that were previously constrained by limited data.Paper Reference:Kevin Cope – University of VirginiaAn Expert-Sourced Measure of Judicial Ideology, Political Analysis (forthcoming)https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4742254Audio Credits for Trailer:AllttA by AllttAhttps://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Jacob Goldin (University of Chicago) discusses his paper "Work Requirements and Child Tax Benefits" with Noah Fehr (ETH Zürich). In his work, Jacob Goldin examines the trade-offs between targeting child tax benefits to the most vulnerable families and preserving incentives to work. Alongside his co-authors, Goldin uses administrative tax data and quasi-random variation in eligibility to estimate the labor supply effects of removing work requirements from child tax credits. The findings suggest that eliminating these requirements leads to negligible reductions in maternal labor force participation, challenging the notion that such provisions are essential for maintaining work incentives.Paper Reference: Jacob Goldin et. alWork Requirements and Child Tax Benefitshttps://www.nber.org/papers/w32343Revised in December 2024Audio Credits for Trailer:AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Daniel Hemel (New York University School of Law) discusses his paper "Law and the New Dynamic Public Finance" with Luca Baltensperger (ETH Zurich).In his work, Prof. Hemel explores how insights from the new dynamic public finance can inform legal policy. This framework challenges conventional wisdom in classical tax theory, offering novel perspectives on taxation, social insurance, and regulatory design. The paper highlights the potential benefits of age-dependent tax schedules, provides fresh justifications for capital taxation, and critiques the structure of retirement savings programs like IRAs and 401(k)s. Paper Reference:Daniel Hemel – New York UniversityLaw and the New Dynamic Public FinanceSSRN Working Paper, March 2025https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5154785Audio Credits for Trailer:AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the CLE vlog series, Raquel De Haro (ETH Zurich) interviews Professor Nick Feamster (University of Chicago) about his studies on compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). Prof. Feamster’s research examines how businesses implement opt-out options for data sharing and explores the use of "dark patterns”. His findings reveal that many websites do not fully comply with CCPA regulations, either by employing tactics that complicate the opt-out process or by failing to provide opt-out options altogether. The discussion further addresses whether the CCPA is emerging as the de facto national privacy standard in the US.Paper References:Van Hong Tran, Aarushi Mehrotra, Ranya Sharma, Marshini Chetty, Nick Feamster, Jens Frankenreiter & Lior StrahilevitzDark Patterns in the Opt-Out Process and Compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.09222Van Tran, Aarushi Mehrotra, Marshini Chetty, Nick Feamster, Jens Frankenreiter & Lior StrahilevitzMeasuring Compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act Over Space and Time https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.17225Audio Credits for Trailer:AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Libertad González (Universitat Pompeu Fabrica and Barcelona School of Economics) discusses her paper on the effect of paternity leave on early child development with Claudia Marangon (ETH Zurich). For their study, Prof. González, Prof. Lídia Farré (IAE-CSIC and BSE), Prof. Claudia Hupkau (CUNEF Universidad and CEP (LSE)), and Prof. Jenifer Ruiz-Valenzuela (UFP, IEB and CEP (LSE)) collected survey data on 5,000 children under the age of six in Spain, and exploited several extensions of paternity leave that took place between 2017 and 2021. Following a differences-in-discontinuities research design, the authors show that four additional weeks of paternity leave led to a significant increase in the fraction of children with developmental delays. The results of the study suggest that paternity leave replaces higher-quality modes of early care. The authors conclude that the impact of parental leave policies on children largely depends on the quality of care provided by parents compared to other childcare options available during that time.Paper References: Libertad González – Universitat Pompeu Fabrica & Barcelona School of Economics Lídia Farré – Institute for Economic Analysis (IAE-CSIC) & Barcelona School of Economics Claudia Hupkau – CUNEF Universidad & CEP (LSE) Jenifer Ruiz-Valenzuela – Universitat de Barcelona & IEB & CEP (LSE)Paternity Leave and Child Development BSE Working Paper 1455, July 2024 https://bw.bse.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/1455-file.pdf

Fines are efficient and widely adopted criminal sanctions due to their low enforcement burdens and the wealth transfer from offenders to society. Among the various fining regimes that have emerged, day fines have been proposed as an optimal way to ensure equality across social classes, yet questions remain about their effectiveness and the fulfilment of their promises in practice. In this episode of the CLE Vlog Series, Alessandro Tacconelli (ETH Zurich) and Prof. Elena Kantorowicz-Reznichenko (Erasmus University Rotterdam) talk about the topic of day fines. Starting from a discussion of her article “Day-Fines: Should the Rich Pay More? – in which she asserts the superiority of day-fine model to other forms of fines – Prof. Kantorowicz-Reznichenko explains some of the main features of those punitive measures, including the quantification of the daily units and their limitations. Her book “Day Fines in Europe,” coedited with Michael Faure (Maastricht University), is recommended to anybody interested to know more about the topic. Paper References:Elena Kantorowicz-Reznichenko – Erasmus University Rotterdam Michael Faure – Maastricht University Day Fines in Europe: Assessing Income-Based Sanctions in Criminal Justice Systems Cambridge University Press (2021) https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108855020Elena Kantorowicz-Reznichenko – Erasmus University Rotterdam Day Fines in Europe: Should the Rich Pay More Review of Law and Economics, 11(3), 481–501 (2015) https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/rle-2014-0045/html Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast series, Prof. Paul Ohm (Georgetown University) and Prof. Filippo Lancieri (Georgetown University, formerly ETH Zurich) discuss Prof. Ohm's study on the pathways for shaping generative AI, with a special focus on fine-tuning. In his study, Prof. Ohm explains the differences between pretraining, fine-tuning, in-context learning, and input and output filtering, highlighting why in particular fine-tuning presents the best mix of cost versus capability for shaping the outputs of generative AI. He also analyzes why fine-tuning is especially well-suited for legal interventions, through a case study on fixing biased models. Finally, Paul Ohm evaluates the market and competition implications of focusing on fine-tuning, such as considerations about the small number of market actors who can afford the costs of the pretraining stage. In this vlog episode, Paul Ohm discusses his study in detail with Filippo Lancieri. Paper References: Paul Ohm – Georgetown University Focusing on Fine-Tuning: Understanding the Four Pathways for Shaping Generative AI Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 25, 214–240 (2024) https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/stlr/article/view/12762/6286 Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast series, Prof. Giorgio Zanarone (HEC Lausanne) and Karol Rutkowski (ETH Zurich) talk about Prof. Zanarone's recent paper "Relationships in the Wild: How Institutions Affect the Governance of Firms". In their study, Zanarone and his co-authors Gani Aldashev (ULB) and Heikki Rantakari (Rochester) develop a relational contracting model to describe how firms, either privately owned or state owned, perform in the shadow of a ruler. After setting the paper in the context of the Washington consensus and the best practices of governance, Prof. Zanarone gives a summary of the model, shortly outlines its main implications and presents two interesting examples.  Paper References: Gani Aldashev – Université Libre de Bruxelles Heikki Rantakari – University of Rochester Giorgio Zanarone – HEC Lausanne Relationships in the Wild: How Institutions Affect the Governance of Firms Aldashev-Rantakari-Zanarone-May-23.pdf (chaire-eppp.org) Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZawLOcbQZ2w

In 1883, the US Supreme Court declared that no one is above the law, emphasizing that all government officials must obey it. This principle, widely accepted in contemporary legal systems, asserts that politicians, like everyone else, should not be immune from prosecution. Unlike for everybody else, though, the decision to prosecute a politician, may be influenced by partisan politics. In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Ian Ayres (Yale Law School) shares insights of the paper “How to Legitimate the Prosecution of Politicians” with Alessandro Tacconelli (ETH Zurich). In their study, Prof. Ayres and co-author Prof. Saikrishna Prakash propose the creation of a Prosecutor Jury—a mechanism designed to ensure politicians’ accountability while preventing politically motivated prosecutions. According to their proposal, when prosecutorial decisions raise partisanship concerns, a super-majority of a politically balanced panel of former U.S. attorneys shall agree on indictment. They recommend the application of this framework to decide whether to prosecute presidential candidates, members of Congress, candidates for federal offices, and federal judges. Paper References: Ian Ayres - Yale University Saikrishna Prakash - University of Virginia How to Legitimate the Prosecution of Politicians https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4544804 Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Luigi Zingales (University of Chicago) discusses the broader topic of "Sharehoder Democracy" with Dr. Philine Widmer (ETH Zurich). References: Eleonora Broccardo – University of Trento Oliver Hart – Harvard University Luigi Zingales – University of Chicago Exit vs. Voice European Corporate Governance Institute – Finance Working Paper No. 694/2020 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3671918# Podcast: Capitalisn't – University of Chicago Podcast Network https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/when-a-few-financial-institutions-control/id1326698855?i=1000647523708 Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZawLOcbQZ2w