Wright: Study Shows Link Between Judges' Economic Training and Likelihood of Appeal

A recent study by Professors Joshua Wright and Michael Baye indicates decisions in antitrust litigation by "generalist" judges are more likely to be appealed than those by judges with training in basic economics.

The study represents the first methodical analysis of the empirical effects of economic complexity or judges' economic training on decision-making in antitrust cases, according to information appearing in Business Wire.

The authors studied data from federal district and administrative court antitrust litigation during the period 1996-2006 to test what impact economic training might have in successful adjudication of antitrust cases, with the study concluding that there is an impact of such training.

"Our analysis showed that decisions involving evaluation of complex economic evidence are significantly more likely to be appealed than other cases," said Baye. "We also found a correlation between judges' economic training and appeals in antitrust cases; the decisions of judges who have basic economic training are much less likely to be appealed than those by generalist judges."

Results of the study will be published in a forthcoming issue of The Journal of Law and Economics.

Study Shows Link Between Judges' Economics Training and the Likelihood of Appeal in Complex Antitrust Cases, Business Wire, May 28, 2010.