A new paper by Elliot Ash (ETH Zurich), Daniel L Chen (Toulouse School of Economics), and Suresh Naidu (Columbia University) in the Quarterly Journal of Economics discusses the impact of the Manne Economics Institute for Federal Judges on judicial rulings (“Ideas Have Consequences: The Impact of Law and Economics on American Justice“). From their abstract:
We find that after attending economics training, participating judges use more economics language in their opinions, rule against regulatory agencies more often, and impose more severe criminal sentences. We argue that economics, as a rigorous social science, was especially effective in persuading judges.
The Manne Economics Institute for Federal Judges is a long-running program started by Henry Manne in 1976 to introduce judges to economic reasoning. It continues to this day, the modern incarnation run by the Law & Economics Center at the Antonin Scalia Law School.[1] An important thing to note is that the lectures given and the participants selection were non-partisan. Both Republican- and Democratic-nominated judges participated, being chosen on a first-come, first-served basis. Further, lectures were given by prominent economists like Milton Freidman, Paul Samuelson, Armen Alchian, Harold Demsetz, Orley Ashenfelter, and Martin Feldstein. Imagine learning economics from that line-up! Two Nobel Prize winners (Samuelson, Freidman), three who should have won Nobel Prizes (Alchian, Demsetz, Feldstein), and one who could still win a Nobel Prize (Ashenfelter).
Manne’s efforts to break down the silos between disciplines stands as a testament to the importance of disciplinary engagement. The judges used their new insights in their rulings, which in turn have continued to influence modern opinions. Further, the classes helped make economic arguments more intelligible to the judges. As the late, great Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, the classes “lift[ed] the veil on such mysteries as regression analyses” (see page 7 of the linked paper). When expert testimony is obscure and technical, it has little influence on judges. Rather, the de-siloing turned such wizardly experts into teachers for the judges[2], allowing them to improve the quality of their rulings and make them less reliant on non-judicial factors.
The specialization of knowledge (a natural consequence of the division of labor) is a great thing. Just like the division of labor, the specialization of knowledge deepens our knowledge base, leading to more and more gains. But one must be aware of the interconnectedness of knowledge. Insights can be gained from all sorts of disciplines, even those seemingly unrelated. This empirical test of the Manne program supports the need for breaking down silos and rejecting the “just stay in your lane!” mindset.
Update: In an earlier version, I had Feldstein in my list of folks who could still win a Nobel Prize. As David Henderson pointed out in the comments, Feldstein is dead, which means he cannot win the Prize now. I have updated the post to reflect that fact.
——
[1] Full disclosure: the LEC also runs a parallel program called The Law Institute for Economics Professors. I was a participant in that program this past June.
[2] This metaphor comes from Roger Koppl and E. James Cowan’s 2010 paper “A Battle of Forensic Experts is not a Race to the Bottom.” (Review of Political Economy 22(2): 235-262
