Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky

In this paper we investigate the potential of deliberation to create consensus among fully informed citizens. Our approach relies on a two cognitive assumptions i. citizens need a thinking frame (perspective) to consider an issue; ii. citizens cannot consider all relevant perspectives simultaneously only sequentially. Together this implies that citizens’ opinions are intrinsically contextual i.e., they have quantum-like characteristics.<p>We capture contextuality in a simple quantum cognitive model. We find that in a binary voting problem, letting two citizens with alternative thinking frames and opposite voting intentions deliberate under the guidance of a benevolent facilitator allows reaching consensus. Opinion change occurs as the result of citizens’ action in terms of “putting themselves in another citizen’s shoes”. The probability for reaching consensus depends on the correlation between perspectives and on their sophistication (dimensionality). Maximally uncorrelated sophisticated perspectives give the best chance for opinion change. With more than two citizens, multiple deliberation rounds with experts allow reaching consensus with significant probability.</p><p>A first central lesson is that with contextual opinions, the diversity of perspectives is beneficial and necessary to overcome initial disagreement. We also learn that well-design procedures managed by a facilitator are needed to increase the probability for consensus. An additional finding is that the richness of a thinking frame helps convergence toward a joint position. The optimal facilitator’s strategy entails focusing deliberation on a properly reduced problem.</p>

In this paper, we investigate the Investor-State Dispute Resolution Settlement (ISDS) framework, which governs dispute resolution between foreign investors and host states in many bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. We show that ISDS delivers fair justice in a one-shot setting. In a repeated-interaction setting however, it is prone to collusion to the benefit of all parties except the host states. Three factors are determinant: First, the investors are the sole parties able to file cases; Second, arbitrators’ earning prospects depend on the investors’ filing cases; And finally, treaties leave substantial discretion to arbitration courts in their interpretation of treaties’ provisions. We give conditions for pro-business collusion between investors and arbitrators to develop and we show how it makes it profitable for foreign investors to file high-stake claims against states in response to new environmental, social or health regulations. Further, we address regulatory chill and show how the fear of ISDS attacks can hold back welfare improving regulation in the host country. Finally, we extend the model to show how regulatory chill affect policy-making in other countries in which the investor operates with similar activities.

This article studies the problem faced by activists who want to maximize firms’ compliance with high environmental standards. Our focus is on radical activism which relies on non-violent civil disobedience. The threat of disruptive actions is used to force firms to concede, i.e., to engage in self-regulation. We adopt a mechanism design approach to characterize an optimal campaign. The analysis indicates that the least vulnerable and most polluting firms should be targeted with disruptive actions while the others are granted a guarantee not to be targeted in exchange for concessions. This characterization allows us to study the determinants of the activist’s strength and how it is affected by repression, a central feature in civil disobedience. We find that an optimal campaign is relatively resilient to repression and that it creates incentives to free ride in the prosecution for individual firms. Next, we consider heterogeneity in firms’ abatement costs and find that an optimal campaign optimizes the allocation of abatement efforts and creates incentives for innovation. We discuss some other welfare properties of the optimal campaign.

We study the problem faced by activists who want to maximize firms’compliance with high environmental standards. Our focus is on radical activism which relies on non-violent civil disobedience. The threat of disruptive actions is used to force firms to concede i.e., to engage in self-regulation. We adopt a mechanism design approach to characterize an optimal campaign. The analysis informs that the least vulnerable and most polluting firms should be targeted with disruptive actions while the others are granted a guarantee not to be targeted in exchange for a concession. This characterization allows studying the determinants of the activist’s strength and how it is affected by repression, a central feature in civil disobedience. We find that an optimal campaign is relatively resilient to repression and that it creates incentives to free ride in prosecution for individual firms. Next, we consider heterogeneity in firms’abatement cost to find that an optimal campaign optimizes the allocation of abatment efforts and creates incentives for innovation. We discuss some other welfare properties of optimal campaign.