Law and economics is divided between the consequentialist view that optimal policy should be based on calculations of costs and benefits and a non-consequentialist view that policy should be determined deontologically: from duties we derive what is the correct law–what is right and just.

Are there deontological motivations, and if there are, how might we formally model these motivations? What are the implications of things like deontological motivations for economics methods and policy, and what puzzles can we explain with deontological motivations that we cannot with standard models? What is the impact of law & economics on justice?

To answer these questions, his research has

  • curated 12 terabytes of archival and administrative data on judges and courts where normative ideas incubate; the data bridge machine learning, causal inference, and normative theories of justice regarding equal treatment before the law and equality based on recognition of difference
  • developed a programming language to study normative commitments in experiments, now used in over 23 countries, 10 academic disciplines, private and public sectors, and local high schools
  • spearheaded randomized impact evaluations to improve justice with high-frequency administrative data in 17 countries

Some current themes on consequences, formation, and measurement of normative commitments (and applications in law) include:

  • Law and Development tracing the incentives that led to what are now viewed as human rights violations
  • Markets and Morality how market forces interact with normative commitments
  • Behavioral Judging social and psychological, economic and political influences on legal ideas and production of justice
  • Law and Legitimacy role of legitimacy in legal compliance
  • Demography of Ideas economics of interpretation (hermemetrics) as a source of normative commitments
  • AI and Rule of Law leveraging normative commitments to facilitate justice

His research has been accepted in leading economics journals (American Economic Review, Econometrica, Journal of Political Economy, and Quarterly Journal of Economics), science journals (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science Advances, Nature Human Behavior), double-blind peer-review law outlets (Stanford-Yale Junior Faculty Forum and Law and STEM Junior Faculty Forum), 5 NeurIPS selections (Machine Learning and Law, Interpretable Machine Learning, CausalML, ML for Economic Policy, and AI for Credible Elections), and press outlets (Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Times of India) and has been referenced in 2 National Academy of Sciences Study Reports (Deterrence and the Death Penalty (2012) and Decarcerating Correctional Facilities during COVID-19 (2020)).

The research has anchored fellowships at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study in 2024-2025 and the Hoover Institution in 2025-2026 as well as successful grant applications with € 11 190 000 in grant budget awarded for “Origins and Effects of Normative Commitments”, “Positive Foundations of Normative Commitments”, “Digital Humanities: Legal Analysis in a Big Data World”, "Increasing Access to Justice Through Improved Judicial Efficiency", “The Impact of Justice Innovations on Poverty, Growth, and Development”, "Data AI and IE", "Green and Digital Development", “High-Dimensional Econometrics Applications in Law and Economics”, “Markets and Morality: Do Free Markets Corrode Moral Values?”, and "oTree: An Open-Source Platform for Online, Lab, and Field Experiments".

He is Lead PI for a € 14 000 000 European Research Council Synergy grant proposal "AMICUS (Analytical Metrics for Informed Courtroom Understanding and Strategy)" that was recommended for funding in 2024 and advanced to the second stage in 2025; he was Coordinating PI for a € 13 300 000 European Research Council Synergy grant proposal "Difference-in-Indifference: Normative Commitments in Multiculturalist Societies" that advanced to the second stage in 2018 and PI for a € 3 600 000 European Research Council Advanced grant proposal "E-Justice Innovations in the Wake of COVID-19" that advanced to the second stage in 2022.

His research has also received support from USAID, The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, European Research Council Consolidator Grant, Swiss National Science Foundation, Russell Sage Foundation, European Union, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, DFID, Google Inclusion, Agence Nationale de la Recherche, International Growth Centre, Knowledge for Trust Fund, MacArthur Foundation, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Social Science Research Council, Templeton Foundation, Earhart Foundation, Institute for Humane Studies, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, and National Science Foundation.

He has been invited to deliver an expert hearing for the Max Planck Society, lectures at the 50th Anniversary of the Law & Economics Center, and plenarys or keynotes at the International Conference on Computational Social Science (IC2S2), Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, European Law and Economics Association, Asia Law and Economics Association, French Law and Economics Association, AI, law, and behavioral science conferences, and the 2018 Heremans Lectures in Law & Economics. He has served on the Program Committees of NAACL Natural Legal Language Processing, International Conference on AI and Law, Econometric Society Meetings, European Economic Association, American Law and Economics Association, and European Law and Economics Association.

AMICUS (Analytical Metrics for Informed Courtroom Understanding and Strategy)/DE JURE (Data and Evidence for Justice Reform)’s aim is to revolutionize how legitimacy and equality in justice systems are measured, understood, and enhanced. The goal is to move from studying historical data to working with administrative data, machine learning, and RCTs to achieve a more just system. The program has thus far worked with countries in three broad categories. In the first group, AMICUS works closely with court management, judiciaries, and training academies to design, deploy, and evaluate interventions—often developing the technologies to do so. In the second group, AMICUS works with auxiliary actors involved in access to justice to assess trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI) and trust in the law. In the third group, AMICUS obtains data and conducts historical analyses on judicial efficiency or inconsistencies that may spur a cycle of change.

Papers


Peer-Review Publications

  1. Ideas Have Consequences: The Impact of Law and Economics on American Justice

  2. Quarterly Journal of Economics, accepted ; E. Ash, S. Naidu


  3. The Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty? Evidence from British Commutations During World War I

  4. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, accepted


  5. Beyond Statistical Myopia: Replying to a Misguided Critique of Mind-Body Research

  6. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, accepted; P. Aungle, N. Holmes


  7. Justice, Growth, and Governance: Causal Evidence on How Courts Shape Economic Outcomes and Conflict

  8. Journal of Economic Surveys, accepted; M. Ramos-Maqueda


  9. Testing Axiomatizations of Ambiguity Aversion

  10. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, accepted


  11. Does Quadratic Voting for Survey Research Improve Policy-Making and Decision Outcomes?

  12. Review of Law and Economics, accepted; M. Bassetti, G. Dias


  13. In-Group Bias in the Indian Judiciary: Evidence from 5 Million Criminal Cases

  14. Review of Economics and Statistics, 2025; doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01569; E. Ash, S. Asher, A. Bhowmick, S. Bhupatiraju, T. Devi, C. Goessmann, P. Novosad, B. Siddiqi


  15. Transmitting Rights: Effective Cooperation, Inter-Gender Contact, and Student Achievement

  16. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2025, 17(3): 107–130; S. Mehmood, S. Naseer


  17. Covering: Mutable Characteristics and Perceptions of Voice in the U.S. Supreme Court

  18. Journal of Law and Empirical Analysis, 2025, 2(1), 2-32; Y. Halberstam, A. Yu


  19. The Data Revolution in Justice

  20. World Development, 186 (2025); DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106834; M. Ramos-Maqueda


  21. Mood and the Malleability of Moral Reasoning: The Impact of Irrelevant Factors on Judicial Decision Making

  22. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, Volume 116, June 2025, 102364 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2025.102364; M. Loecher


  23. Motivated Reasoning in the Field: Polarization of Precedent, Prose, and Policy in U.S. Circuit Courts, 1930-2013

  24. PLOS-ONE 20(3), e0318790. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318790; W. Lu


  25. Priming Ideology II: Presidential Elections Increasingly Affect U.S. Judges

  26. European Journal of Law and Economics, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-025-09842-2


  27. How Do Rights Revolutions Occur? Free Speech and the First Amendment

  28. Social Science Research, 128 (2025) 103155; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2025.103155; S. Yeh


  29. Can Policies Affect Preferences? Theory and Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence

  30. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 2025; DOI: 10.1111/sjoe.12586; V. Levonyan, S. Yeh


  31. Shaping Societal Norms: Experimental Evidence on the Normative Impacts of Free Speech Law

  32. Journal of Economic Psychology; 107 (2025) 102799; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2025.102799


  33. The Impact of Online Dispute Resolution on Judicial Outcomes in India

  34. Review of Law and Economics, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1515/rle-2025-0039; P. Chandra, V. Nagarathinam


  35. The Rule of Law or the Rule of Robots? Nationally Representative Survey Evidence from Kenya

  36. Information and Communications Technology Law, 2025, 1-18; B. Flanagan, G. Almeida, A. Gitahi


  37. Gender Attitudes in the Judiciary: Evidence from U.S. Circuit Courts

  38. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 16(1), 314-350, 2024; DOI: 10.1257/app.20210435; E. Ash, A. Ornaghi


  39. Markets and Morality: How Markets Shape Our (Dis)Regard for Others

  40. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 2024; https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewae016; E. Reinhart


  41. Teacher Vaccinations Enhance Student Achievement in Pakistan: The Role of Role Models and Theory of Mind

  42. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121 (48) e2406034121; S. Mehmood, S. Naseer


  43. Altruism in Governance: Insights from Randomized Training for Pakistan's Junior Ministers

  44. Journal of Development Economics, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2024.103317; S. Mehmood, S. Naseer


  45. Grit and Academic Resilience During Covid-19

  46. Nature NPJ Science of Learning, 2024, 9:57; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-024-00265-3; S. Ertac, T. Evgeniou, A. Nadaf, X. Miao, E. Yilmaz


  47. Priming Ideology I: Why Do Presidential Elections Affect U.S. Judges

  48. European Economic Review, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2024.104835


  49. The Judicial Superego: Implicit Egoism, Internalized Racism, and Prejudice in Three Million Sentencing Decisions

  50. Kyklos, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/kykl.12400


  51. The Disavowal of Decisionism in American Law: Political Motivation in the Judiciary

  52. Review of Law and Economics, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1515/rle-2024-0044; E. Reinhart


  53. Who Cares? Measuring Attitude Strength in a Polarized Environment

  54. Political Science Research and Methods, 2024; DOI: doi:10.1017/psrm.2024.27; C. Cavaille, K. Van der Straeten


  55. Caste aside? Names, Networks and Justice in the Courts of Bihar, India

  56. European Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1(2), 2024: 151-178; S. Bhupatiraju, S. Joshi, P. Neis


  57. Is Ambiguity Aversion a Preference? Ambiguity Aversion without Asymmetric Information

  58. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 111 (2024) 102218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2024.102218


  59. Mapping the Geometry of Law using Document Embeddings

  60. European Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1(1) (2024): 49–68; https://doi.org/10.62355/ejels.18073; S. Bhupatiraju; K. Venkataramanan


  61. Ramadan Fasting Increases Leniency in Judges from Pakistan and India

  62. Nature Human Behavior, 2023, 1-7; Cover article; S. Mehmood, A. Seror


  63. Invariance of Equilibrium to the Strategy Method I: Theory

  64. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40881-023-00145-3; M. Schonger


  65. Invariance of Equilibrium to the Strategy Method II: Experimental Evidence

  66. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40881-023-00146-2; M. Schonger


  67. Non-Confrontational Extremists

  68. European Economic Review, 157, 2023: 104521; M. Michaeli, D. Spiro


  69. Do Markets Overcome Repugnance? Muslim Trade Response to Anti-Muhammad Cartoons

  70. European Economic Review, 156, 2023: 104483


  71. Clash of Norms: Judicial Leniency on Defendant Birthdays

  72. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 211, 324-344, 2023; A. Philippe


  73. Judicial Compliance in District Courts

  74. International Review of Law and Economics, 2023: 106122


  75. Motivational Drivers for Serial Position Effects in High-Stakes Legal Decisions

  76. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(7), 1137–1156, 2023; O. Plonsky, Y. Feldman, T. Steiner, L. Nitzer


  77. Social Preferences or Sacred Values? Theory and Evidence of Deontological Motivations

  78. Science Advances, 8(19), eabb3925, 2022; M. Schonger


  79. Measuring Judicial Sentiment: Methods and Application to U.S. Circuit Courts

  80. Economica, 89, 362–376, 2022; E. Ash, S. Galletta


  81. COVID-19 Within Families Amplifies the Prosociality Gap Between Adolescents of High and Low Socioeconomic Status

  82. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118 (46), e2110891118, 2021; M. Sutter, C. Terrier


  83. Carceral-Community Epidemiology, Structural Racism, and Covid-19 Disparities

  84. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118 (21), e2026577118, 2021; E. Reinhart


  85. Association of Jail Decarceration and Anti-Contagion Policies with Covid-19 Case Growth Rates in United States Counties

  86. Journal of American Medical Association Network Open, 4(9), e2123405, 2021; E. Reinhart


  87. Incarceration And Its Disseminations: COVID-19 Pandemic Lessons From Chicago’s Cook County Jail

  88. Health Affairs, 39(8), 1412-1418, 2020; E. Reinhart


  89. Automated Fact-Value Distinction in Court Opinions

  90. European Journal of Law and Economics, 50, 451-467, 2020, lead article; Y. Cao, E. Ash


  91. Gender Violence and the Price of Virginity: Theory and Evidence of Incomplete Marriage Contracts

  92. Journal of Religion and Demography, 7(2), 190-221, 2020


  93. Judicial Analytics and the Great Transformation of American Law

  94. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 27(1), 15-42, 2019


  95. Mandatory Disclosure: Theory and Evidence from Industry-Physician Relationships

  96. Journal of Legal Studies, 48(2), 409-440, 2019; V. Levonyan, E. Reinhart, G. Taksler


  97. Law and Literature: Theory and Evidence on Empathy and Guile

  98. Review of Law and Economics, 15(1), 2018


  99. Electoral Cycles Among U.S. Courts of Appeals Judges

  100. Journal of Law and Economics, 60(3), 479-496, 2017; C. Berdejo


  101. The Shareholder Wealth Effects of Delaware Litigation

  102. American Law and Economics Review, 19(2), 287-326, 2017; A. Badawi


  103. Decision-Making Under the Gambler’s Fallacy: Evidence From Asylum Courts, Loan Officers, and Baseball Umpires

  104. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(3): 1181-1241, 2016; T. Moskowitz, K. Shue


  105. oTree: An Open Source Platform for Online, Lab, and Field Experiments

  106. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 9(1), 88-97, 2016, M. Schonger, C. Wickens


  107. Perceived Masculinity Predicts U.S. Supreme Court Outcomes

  108. PLOS-ONE, 11(10), e0164324, 2016; Y. Halberstam, A. Yu


  109. Are Online Labor Markets Spot Markets for Tasks? A Field Experiment on the Behavioral Response to Wages Cuts

  110. Information Systems Research, 27(2), 403-423, 2016; J. Horton


  111. Can Markets Stimulate Rights? On the Alienability of Legal Claims

  112. RAND Journal of Economics, 46(1), 23-65, 2015


  113. The Construction of Morals

  114. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 104, 84-105, 2014; S. Yeh


  115. Sparse Models and Methods for Optimal Instruments with an Application to Eminent Domain

  116. Econometrica, 80(6), 2369-2429, 2012; A. Belloni, V. Chernozhukov, C. Hansen


  117. Can Countries Reverse Fertility Decline? Evidence from France's Marriage and Baby Bonuses, 1929-1981

  118. International Tax and Public Finance, 118(3), 252-271, 2011


  119. Club Goods and Group Identity: Evidence from Islamic Resurgence During the Indonesian Financial Crisis

  120. Journal of Political Economy, 118(2), 300-354, 2010


  121. Income Distribution Dynamics with Endogenous Fertility

  122. Journal of Economic Growth, 7(3), 227-258, 2002; M. Kremer



    Peer-Review Conference Proceedings

  123. Interacting with AI at Work: Perceptions and Opportunities from the UK Judiciary

  124. CHIWORK '25: Proceedings of the 4th Annual Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work, 2025 (5), 1-8, https://doi.org/10.1145/3729176.3729192; B. Flanagan, E. Solovey


  125. Reward-on-the-Line Offline Reinforcement Learning for Conversational Agents

  126. Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on AI, Ethics and Society, 2025; X. Lin, M. Wang, G. Yang


  127. Civicbase: An Open-Source Platform for Deploying Quadratic Voting for Survey Research NeurIPS21

  128. AI Magazine, 44(3), 263-273; M. Bassetti, R.Das, G. Dias, A. Mortoni


  129. In-group Bias in the Indian Judiciary: Evidence from 5.5 million Criminal Cases

  130. Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGCAS Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies, 2021; E. Ash, S. Asher, A. Bhowmick, S. Bhupatiraju, T. Devi, C. Goessmann, P. Novosad, B. Siddiqi


  131. Analysis of Vocal Implicit Bias in SCOTUS Decisions Through Predictive Modeling

  132. Proceedings of Experimental Linguistics, 2018; E. Ash, R. Vunikili, H. Ochani, D. Jaiswal, R. Deshmukh


  133. Non-Segmental Conditioning of Sibilant Variation in American English

  134. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 2018; J. Phillips, A. Yu


  135. The Genealogy of Ideology: Identifying Persuasive Memes and Predicting Agreement in the U.S. Courts of Appeals

  136. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on AI and the Law, 2017; A. Parthasarathy, S. Verma


  137. Early Predictability of Asylum Court Decisions

  138. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on AI and the Law, 2017; M. Dunn, L. Sagun, H. Sirin


  139. Can Machine Learning Help Predict the Outcome of Asylum Adjudications?

  140. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on AI and the Law, 2017; J. Eagel


  141. What Matters: Agreement Among U.S. Courts of Appeals Judges NeurIPS16

  142. NeurIPS 2016 (Machine Learning and the Law); X. Cui, L. Shang, J. Zheng


  143. Investigating Variation in English Vowel-to-Vowel Coarticulation in a Longitudinal Phonetic Corpus

  144. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 2015; C. Abrego-Collier, J. Phillips, B. Pillion, A. Yu


  145. Designing Incentives for Inexpert Human Raters

  146. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2011; J. Horton, A. Shaw


  147. An Empirical Study Comparing the Controlled Random Search Procedure and the General Simulated Annealing Method for Function Optimization

  148. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual District of Columbia Computer Conference, 1995



    Law Review and Non-Peer Review Publications

  149. Exploring Mutable Characteristics and Discriminatory Perceptions in Justice Systems

  150. Minnesota Journal of Law and Inequality, forthcoming


  151. Incarceration And Its Disseminations: COVID-19 Pandemic Lessons From Chicago’s Cook County Jail - A Response to Pierson et al.

  152. Health Affairs, 40(1), 177, 2021; E. Reinhart


  153. The Promise of Machine Learning for the Courts of India

  154. National Law School of India Review, 33(2), 2020; S. Bhupatiraju, S. Joshi

    Article

  155. A Better Way to Onboard AI

  156. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 2-11, 2020; B. Babic, T. Evgeniou, A. Fayard


  157. A Decision-Theoretic Approach to Understanding Survey Response: Likert vs. Quadratic Voting for Attitudinal Research

  158. University of Chicago Law Review Online, 22(2019); C. Cavaille, K. Van der Straeten


  159. Automated Classification of Modes of Moral Reasoning in Judicial Decisions

  160. Computational Legal Studies, 2018; N. Mainali, L. Meier, E. Ash


  161. What Kind of Judge is Brett Kavanaugh? A Quantitative Analysis

  162. Cardozo Law Review de novo, 2018; E. Ash


  163. Economics, Religion, and Culture: A Brief Introduction

  164. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 104, 1-3, 2014; D. Hungerman


  165. A Market for Justice: A First Empirical Look at Third-Party Litigation Funding

  166. University of Pennslyvania Journal of Business Law, 15(3), 2013; D. Abrams


  167. Distinguishing Between Custom and Law: Empirical Examples of Endogeneity from Property and First Amendment Precedents

  168. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 21(1081), 2013; S. Yeh


  169. Sonia Sotomayor and the Construction of Merit

  170. Emory Law Journal, 61(4), 2012; G. Charles, M. Gulati


  171. Does Disclosure Matter? Comment

  172. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 168(1), 120-123, 2012


  173. Trading Off Reproductive Technology and Adoption: A Response to Appleton and Pollak

  174. Minnesota Law Review, 95(6), 2011; I. G. Cohen


  175. Trading Off Reproductive Technology and Adoption: Do IVF Subsidies Decrease Adoption Rates and Should It Matter? Stanford-Yale Junior Faculty Forum

  176. Minnesota Law Review, 95(2), 2010; I. G. Cohen


  177. Income-Distribution Dynamics with Endogenous Fertility

  178. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 89(2), 155-160, 1999; M. Kremer



    Chapters

  179. AI and India's Judicial System: Lessons from POCSO

  180. Cambridge University Press Handbook on Courts and AI, 2026; S. Bhupatiraju, S. Joshi


  181. Incremental AI for Fairer and More Efficient Justice

  182. in Driving Revolutionary Ideas Into Practice, 2022; M. Ramos-Maqueda


  183. Using Data and Technology to Improve Court Performance and to Strengthen Alternative Dispute Resolution

  184. World Development Report Annex, 2022


  185. Government Analytics Using Machine Learning

  186. Handbook of Measurement, 2022; S. Bhupatiraju, S. Jankin, G. Kim, M. Kupi, M. Ramos-Maqueda


  187. Digitalization of Justice: The Impact of Judicial Speed on Firm Outcomes in Croatia

  188. Data, Digitalization, and Governance, Europe and Central Asia Economic Update (Spring) 2021; M. Ramos-Maqueda


  189. Latin America & the Caribbean (LAC) Program

  190. DIME Report; G. Bedoya, M. Ramos-Maqueda, T. Scot, A. Legovini, S. Milusheva, C. Piza


  191. Machine Learning and Rule of Law

  192. Law as Data, Santa Fe Institute Press, ed. M. Livermore and D. Rockmore, 2019(16)


  193. Case Vectors: Spatial Representations of the Law Using Document Embeddings

  194. Law as Data, Santa Fe Institute Press, ed. M. Livermore and D. Rockmore, 2019(11); E. Ash


  195. Attorney Voice and the U.S. Supreme Court

  196. Law as Data, Santa Fe Institute Press, ed. M. Livermore and D. Rockmore, 2019(13); Y. Halberstam, M. Kumar, A. Yu


  197. Intermediated Social Preferences: Altruism in an Algorithmic Era

  198. Advances in Economics of Religion, Vol. 158, Palgrave Macmillan, 2019, ed. J. P. Carvalho, S. Iyer, J. Rubin.


  199. Tastes for Desert and Placation: A Reference Point-Dependent Model of Social Preferences

  200. Research in Experimental Economics, Experimental Economics and Culture, Volume 20, 205-226, 2018; Bingley, UK: Emerald; ed. A. Gunnthorsdottir and D. A. Norton


  201. Does Appellate Precedent Matter? Stock Price Responses to Appellate Court Decisions of FCC Actions

  202. Empirical Legal Analysis: Assessing the Performance of Legal Institutions, 2013; A. Araiza, S. Yeh


  203. Islamic Resurgence and Social Violence During the Indonesian Financial Crisis

  204. Institutions and Norms in Economic Development, MIT Press, ed. M. Gradstein and K. Konrad, 179-200, 2007



    Monographs

  205. A Decade of POCSO Developments, Challenges and Insights from Judicial Data

  206. Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, 2022; Apoorva, A. Ranjan, S. Bhupatiraju, S. Joshi


  207. Deep IV in Law: Appellate Decisions and Texts Impact Sentencing in Trial Courts NeurIPS19

  208. Cambridge University Press, doi:10.1017/9781009296403; Z. Huang, X. Zhang, R. Wang



    Lectures

  209. Incremental AI

  210. Asian Journal of Law and Economics, 14(1), 2023, 1-16.


  211. Transforming Justice in the Middle East and North Africa through Data

  212. in A New State of Mind, Middle East and Near Africa World Bank Flagship Report, 2022; M. Ramos-Maqueda


  213. Religion, Welfare Politics, and Church-State Separation

  214. Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 42(1), 42-52, 2007; lecture; J. Lind



    Op-Eds

  215. L'odyssée de l'intelligence artificielle

  216. L'Opinion, Aug 25, 2023


  217. A Decade Later, POSCO Isn’t Perfect, But It’s Had an Impact

  218. The Times of India, Nov 21, 2022; A. Ranjan, S. Bhupatiraju, S. Joshi


  219. A Judge Retires. Just How Political Is That Decision?

  220. The New York Times, April 14, 2022; E. Reinhart


  221. Releasing Nonviolent Accused Makes Us Safer in Covid Era

  222. Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2020; E. Reinhart


  223. Kavanaugh is radically conservative. Here's the data to prove it

  224. Washington Post, Jul 10, 2018; E. Ash



    Invited

  225. Optimizing Judicial Efficiency: A Sharing Economy Approach to Reducing Court Backlogs

  226. Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design; Y. He, B. Mbau


  227. Courts and Informality Across Countries

  228. Public Choice; J. Lee, P. Neis



    Revise and Resubmit

  229. Impact of Free Legal Search on Rule of Law: Evidence from Indian Kanoon

  230. Journal of the European Economic Association; S. Bhupatiraju, S. Joshi, P. Neis


  231. Building Courts: Effects on Access to Justice and Economic Development

  232. Journal of Political Economy: Micro; M. Chemin, P. Kimalu, M. Ramos-Maqueda


  233. Environmental Litigation as Scrutiny: A Four Decade Analysis of Justice, Firms, and Pollution in India

  234. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management; S. Bhupatiraju, S. Joshi, P. Neis, S. Singh


  235. Heat-Related Mortality in U.S. Jails, 2008–2019

  236. PLOS ONE; E. Reinhart, V. Nagarathinam


  237. Bureaucratic Training and State Capacity: Experimental Evidence from Peru’s Judiciary

  238. Journal of Public Economics; M. Ramos-Maqueda, B. Silveira


  239. AI Education as State Capacity: Experimental Evidence from Pakistan

  240. Journal of Development Economics; S. Mehmood, S. Naseer


  241. Contract Enforcement in a Stateless Economy

  242. Journal of Development Economics; S. Mehmood


  243. Growth Under the Shadow of Expropriation? The Economics Impacts of Eminent Domain

  244. Regional Science and Urban Economics; S. Yeh


  245. Prejudice in Practice

  246. Journal of Law and Empirical Analysis; J. Graham, M. Ramos-Maqueda, S. Singh


  247. The Cognitive Underpinnings of Judicial Bias: The Role of Social Identity and Prospect Theory

  248. International Review of Law and Economics; J. Graham, M. Ramos-Maqueda, S. Singh


  249. E-Justice in Peru: Apps for Reconciliation and Bridging the Justice Gap through Technology
    Review of Law and Economics; B. Silveira



    Reject and Resubmit

  250. Information Provision and Court Performance: Experimental Evidence from Chile

  251. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization; P. Carrillo, M. Ramos-Maqueda, B. Silveira


  252. The Strategic Display of Facial Expressions

  253. European Economic Review; A. Hopfensitz, J. Van Der Ven, B. Van Leeuwen


  254. Training Policymakers in Econometrics

  255. Economic Journal; S. Mehmood, S. Naseer


  256. Training Policymakers in Econometrics II: Tax Officers and Fiscal State Capacity

  257. Management Science; S. Mehmood, S. Naseer



    Submitted

  258. Aligning Large Language Model Agents with Rational and Kantian Preferences: A Supervised Fine-Tuning Approach

  259. W. Lu, C. Hansen


  260. Unraveling and Judge Productivity in the Market for Federal Judicial Law Clerks: Evidence and A Novel Proposal

  261. Y. He, T. Yamashita


  262. Saving the Separation of Powers: Evidence from the Lawyers’ Movement in Pakistan

  263. S. Mehmood


  264. Data Science for Justice: Evidence from a Nationwide Randomized Experiment in Kenya

  265. M. Chemin, V. Di Maro, P. Kimalu, M. Ramos-Maqueda


  266. What Role Does Access to Civil Justice Play in Reducing Homelessness?

  267. C. Jenq, M. Park, A. Taylor


  268. Justifications for TSLS and a Mostly Harmless Improvement NeurIPS20

  269. J. Chen, G. Lewis


  270. Insiders, Outsiders, and Involuntary Unemployment: Sexual Harassment Exacerbates Gender Inequality

  271. J. Sethi


  272. The Political Economy of Beliefs: Why Fiscal and Social Conservatives/Liberals Come Hand-in-Hand

  273. J. Lind


  274. Willingness To Say? Optimal Survey Design for Prediction

  275. C. Cavaille, R. Das, K. Van der Straeten


  276. Why Are Rights Revolutions Rare?

  277. S. Mehmood, S. Naseer


  278. Legitimizing Policy

  279. J. Fischman, M. Michaeli, D. Spiro


  280. The Relativity of Racial Perception: Color Contrast Effects in Refugee Courts
    V. Nagarathinam, E. Reinhart


  281. How Prosecutors Exacerbate Racial Disparities
    V. Nagarathinam, E. Reinhart


  282. The Legal Reproduction of Racism: Determinants of Sentencing Disparities
    V. Nagarathinam, E. Reinhart


  283. The Prejudices of Economic Ideology: The Exacerbation of Racial and Gender Inequalities by Economics Training for Judges

  284. V. Nagarathinam, E. Reinhart


  285. Legal Disparities and Judicial Mitigation: Muslim Petitioners in an Indian High Court

  286. S. Bhupatiraju, S. Joshi, P. Neis


  287. Homophily of Behavioral Traits is Strong in Social Networks, but Depends on Demographics and Increases Segregation

  288. P. Bhargava, M. Sutter, C. Terrier


  289. Homophily and Transmission of Behavioral Traits in Networks

  290. P. Bhargava, M. Sutter, C. Terrier


  291. Inside the Mind of Inmates: An Empirical Study of Inmates’ Perceptions, Attitudes, and Behavior

  292. L. Cingl, A. Philippe, M. Soltes


  293. Attitudes as Assets


  294. Addiction and Illegal Markets

  295. S. Ishiguro, S. Mehmood, A. Seror


  296. Automated Legal Information Retrieval and Summarization

  297. S. Bhupatiraju, K. Venkataramanan


  298. Smart Smartphones for Mental Health

  299. T. Ahmed, A. Ani, A. Alvi, N. Mbau, S. Saheel, Z. Wahhaj


  300. What Precedent Reveals About Group Agency: Evidence from Discursive Dilemmas on the U.S. Supreme Court

  301. B. Flanagan, N. Mbau, K. Silver


  302. oTree-QVSR: An Open-Source Application for Quadratic Voting Survey Research

  303. N. Mbau



    Accepted at Conferences

  304. Algorithms as Prosecutors: Lowering Rearrest Rates Without Disparate Impacts and Identifying Defendant Characteristics ‘Noisy’ to Human Decision-Makers Law and STEM Junior Faculty Forum NeurIPS17


  305. Judicial Activism: When Judges Rewrite the Constitution

  306. J. Goto, S. Mehmood


  307. Judicial Inattention: Machine Prediction of Appeal Success in U.S. Asylum Courts

  308. S. Zhang


  309. Machine Learning and Deterrence

  310. H. Sigstad


  311. Mimicry: Phonetic Accommodation Predicts U.S. Supreme Court Votes

  312. C. Hansen, A. Yu


  313. Religious Freedoms, Church-State Separation, and Religiosity: Evidence from Randomly Assigned Judges


  314. Is Justice Really Blind? And Is It Also Deaf?
    M. Kumar


  315. Using Machine Learning to Detect Human Rights Abuses


  316. How Does Science Progress? A Statistical Approach to Postmodern Theories of Knowledge


    Streamed presentations

    Innovation and Competition, Slides
    Radcliffe Lecture, Can AI Help Courts Be Fair and Just? Unlocking the Positive Effects of Justice on Economic Development, Slides
    2024 50th Anniversary Law & Economics Center, Can AI Help Courts Be Fair and Just?, Slides
    2024 50th Anniversary Law & Economics Center, Unlocking the Positive Effects of Justice on Economic Development, Slides
    2024 50th Anniversary Law & Economics Center, Training Judges and Civil Servants: A Human-Centric AI Approach, Slides
    2023 International Student Week Keynote, Slides
    2023 Conference on Empirical Legal Studies Plenary
    2023 Stanford Center for Rule of Law, Slides
    2023 Association of French, Italian and German Administrative Judges, Slides
    2023 Experimental Jurisprudence, Slides
    2023 IAST-OxPo Political Science & Political Economy, Slides
    2023 American Law and Economics Association, Slides
    2023 Association of American Law Schools Racial Disparities in Criminal Justice, Slides
    2023 Open Door Legal, Slides
    2022 Asia Law and Economics Association Keynote
    2022 NBER Development
    2022 Stanford Hoover Text as Data
    2022 Harvard Development Network
    2022 NBER SI IT and Digitization
    2022 Can AI Be Ethical?
    2021 Judiciary of Colombia
    2020 International Conference on Computational Social Science Keynote
    2020 World Bank DE JURE, Brief
    2018 European Law and Economics Association Keynote, Slides
    2017 Institutional and Organizational Economics Academy, Slides
    2014 Homo Oeconomicus Versus Homo Socialis Zurich
    2013 Inaugural Lecture ETH Zurich

    Data Science Justice Collaboratory


    We are always looking for curious, dedicated people interested in getting involved with research at the postdoctoral, doctoral, or pre-doctoral level. See research statement for background on current research. Brief summary of ongoing projects analyzing 12 terabytes of curated archival and administrative data on judges and courts: Slides

    Interested graduate and postdoctoral applicants should email a current CV, sample publication or manuscript, short description of research interests (2 pages or less), and names of 3 references. Undergraduate applicants should have a strong mathematical or computational background, broad knowledge in statistical methods, and experience with large data sets. For example, see 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 machine learning projects.

    oTree applicants should have Django, Python, and web development experience. Applicants should also have leadership and organizational skills as the position may require playing a leadership role as well as supervising research assistants.

    Previous research team members and current positions are listed here.


    Data


    1. Link administrative Medicare data to industry-physician relationships cleaned from litigation settlements (a comprehensive dataset is available through the Affordable Care Act) to examine the impact of disclosure laws and the impact of pharmaceutical company payments to doctors on prescribing, patient outcomes, and patient adherence.


    2. Automate advances in high-dimensional econometrics for causal effects of court precedent where judges are randomly assigned. Apply method in legal areas where we have already hand-coded data (sexual harassment, eminent domain, free speech, abortion, church-state separation, affirmative action, gay rights, disability rights, campaign finance, capital punishment, criminal appeals, desegregation, sex discrimination, punitive damages, federalism, National Labor Review Board, environmental protection, National Environmental Policy Act, Federal Communications Commission, Title VII, First Amendment, Eleventh Amendment, standing, contracts, and corporate veil piercing are among the 25 polarized legal areas) to study the channels through which legal regulations have their effects. Use high-frequency data to buttress assumptions of exogeneity and precedence. Examine whether law shapes values and conceptions of rights.


    3. Develop oTree for running real-time experiments in lab, online, or via smart device in the field for new ways of measuring preferences. Show, e.g., how presence of deontological commitments can problematize widely used experimental methods involving random lottery incentive and strategy method; theoretically and empirically probe foundations of polarization; test assumptions in private law and judicial decision-making. oTree is open-source and an innovation on zTree.


    4. Digitize universe of US Circuit Court cases from 1880 to 2013 (roughly 380,000 cases), the identities of randomly assigned judges sitting on the panels and authoring the opinions, the dissents and concurrences, the judges' biographies, the hand-labeled legal topic, the citation network among the cases, and 2 billion N-grams of up to length eight. Link publicly available Supreme Court datasets, US District docket datasets, geocoded judge seats, biographies of judicial clerks, 5% random sample hand-labeled for hundreds of features including vote ideology, oral arguments, and administrative data from Administrative Office of the US Courts (date of key milestones, e.g., oral arguments, when was the last brief filed, etc.) for measuring priming of identity, implicit bias, peer effects, perfectionism, partisan ways of persuasion, judicial innovation, career incentives, how markets unravel, potential Supreme Court nominees, geometry of law, legal reasoning, fact vs. value, judicial policy levers, and the genealogy of ideologies and schools of thought in temporally and spatially disaggregated text. Use algorithmic mechanism design, LASSO, and automated text analysis for court precedent project and citation data for econometrics of networks.


    5. Digitize World War I British archival datasets, including universe of deserters reported in military diaries, police gazettes, and handwritten military trials, commuted and executed capital sentences, geocoded casualties, maps, officer lists, and order of battle to examine the role of legitimacy in legal compliance, effect of the death penalty on British vs. Irish soldiers, and potential long-run impact of demographic violence.


    6. Curate universe of administrative data on 1 million refugee asylum and 15 million hearing sessions and their time of day across 50 courthouses and 20 years (with randomly assigned judges), 1 million criminal sentencing decisions in US District Courts from 1992-2009 (with randomly assigned judges), and hand-collected biographical data to study gambler's fallacy, implicit egoism, habit formation, racial contrast, mood, inattention, interpellation, revealed preference indifference, sequence effects, and time of day effects on judges' normative commitments.


    7. Link universe of individuals in a district attorney's office over a decade with many stages of random assignment, linked to administrative data on wages, education, credit, among other life outcomes, and past and current addresses for survey follow-up to measure, e.g., name letter effects, how algorithms can reduce disparate impacts and identify noisy characteristics to human decision makers, perceived legitimacy of law using a tool like oTree, and the long-run effects of forced migration.


    8. Digitize speech patterns in US Supreme Court oral arguments since 1955 - longitudinal data on speech intonation (linguistic turns) are rare. Link to oral advocates' biographies, faces, clipped identical introductory sentences, and ratings of their traits. Test labor market treatment of mutable characteristics and persuasion, and mimicry between lawyers and Justices and among Justices over time using high-dimensional econometrics.


    9. Over 1000 legal databases tagged and linked including all federal (supreme, appellate, district, bankruptcy, tax, patent, trade, customs, claims, unpublished) and state (supreme, appellate, district, tax, chancery, family, labor, unpublished) court cases to the earliest available date (some as early as 1778). Types of databases include code, statutes, bills, regulations, bulletins and notices, commission decisions, Attorney General opinions, rulings, statements, opinion letters, bill tracking, workers' compensation decisions, municipal codes, physician discipline decisions, market conduct examinations, issuances, directives, public health reports, FTC, IRS, EEOC, Department of Labor, Department of Defense, EPA, SEC, Federal Reserve, contract appeals decisions, legislative service, manuals, etc.


    10. Case records collected from 24 High Courts and 3000 subordinate courts in India with details on over 8.7 million case records and 67 million hearings. Study (1) impact of court functioning on economic growth and inequality, (2) impact of economics, political, or psychological factors on court outcomes, (3) impact of court decisions or precedents on individuals' outcomes, and (4) artificial intelligence applications. Analogous datasets from Chile, Peru, Brazil, Bangladesh, Croatia, Kenya, and the Philippines.

    Contact


    Daniel L Chen
    21 allée de Brienne
    31015 Toulouse Cedex 6
    France

Google scholar profile