Work-in-progress 

Addressing the problem of climate change requires considering the interests of future generations. We must be willing to incur substantial costs today to secure uncertain benefits that may only materialize beyond our lifetimes. However, the current reliance on the net-present value (NPV) method in cost-benefit assessments of policy has proven inadequate for motivating decisive action. Borrowed from corporate finance, NPV significantly discounts the value of future benefits, especially those far in the future. In response, we propose an alternative, sociologically grounded framework drawing on an analysis of diverse long-term planning projects, which we call “posterity projects.” These projects, spanning various geographies and historical periods, have acknowledged and sought to protect the needs of future generations, albeit imperfectly. Examples include early modern forestry practices in Europe and Asia, gothic cathedrals in medieval Europe, modern conservation easements (CEs) in the United States, contemporary nuclear waste management strategies in advanced Western economies, family estates and trusts used for wealth perpetuation, and the patient capital of long-lived family businesses in Germany and Japan. By studying these examples, we explore how decision-makers anticipated future needs and capabilities, fostered effective intergenerational partnerships by aligning short-term and long-term interests, and balanced commitment to long-term goals with the flexibility needed to adapt to changing circumstances through various economic, social, and legal institutions. Thus, we offer an alternative institutionalist perspective that provides practical insights for effectively integrating the welfare of future generations into long-term planning for global climate change.  

Scholars of industrial policy often characterize location-based investment subsidies as ineffective tools of economic development. We argue that investment subsidies can reflect a variety of state-market logics, including in some cases the use of public authority to steer business investment toward socially valuable purposes. Through extensive empirical analysis of subnational investment subsidy programs and awards in the United States, we first highlight heterogeneity in program design and the intensity of spending across jurisdictions. We then develop a new typology that distinguishes between the market orientation of subsidy programs and the targetedness of subsidy schemes to identify four distinct subsidy types: laissez-faire, beggar-thy-neighbor, developmental and Pigouvian. The utility of this framework is illustrated in four state case studies that reflect different prevailing industrial policy logics. In highlighting this heterogeneity, we point to the need to better understand the role of industrial policy at the subnational level.   

This study investigates the often-overlooked role of economic consultants in shaping antitrust (competition) law enforcement policies. While existing literature predominantly emphasizes the influence of economists as academics and technocrats, it tends to neglect the distinct impact of economic consultants. Tracing the evolution of the economic consultancy industry—from its origins among academic economists to its maturation into specialized firms and subsequent global expansion—this paper delineates three key phases of influence. Firstly, during the 1950s and 1960s, economic consultants exercised a "back-door influence" by leveraging confidential data from defense-side antitrust cases to develop theories that laid the groundwork for the Chicago School framework, ultimately leading to the relaxation of U.S. antitrust regulations in the 1980s. Secondly, as the Chicago School became the dominant legal paradigm in the 1980s and 1990s, the increasingly autonomous consultancy sector "closed the door behind" by resisting the integration of emerging post-Chicago, game-theoretical approaches that advocated for stricter enforcement. Lastly, through their international proliferation, particularly into the European Union, U.S.-based consultancies exerted a "harmonizing effect," disseminating American economic doctrines and fostering policy convergence across jurisdictions. By shedding light on these multifaceted roles, the study underscores the significant and unique contributions of economic consultants to antitrust policy developments worldwide.

The globalization of laws since the 1990s has prompted mixed responses from legal professions. Lawyers increasingly rely on international credentials, such as foreign degrees, language skills, and memberships in global legal bodies, to advance their careers, fostering global harmonization in corporate legal practices. However, national differences in business practices, legal traditions, and education have sustained variations in lawyering methods.

This paper uses a resource-based framework to explore these dynamics, arguing that lawyers’ practices align with international or domestic trends based on their use of different professional resources. International credentials often enhance lawyers’ careers in global contexts, while domestic expertise proves advantageous in local settings. This results in both convergence and divergence within the same legal fields.

The study examines competition lawyers in Turkey and Mexico, where competition laws, introduced globally from the U.S. and EU in the 1990s, shaped new legal fields. Interviews with 54 lawyers reveal a dual dynamic: international credentials are essential for handling multinational mergers, while local expertise is key for addressing domestic antitrust cases. This duality drives segmentation in competition lawyering, with firms specializing in either global or local practices.