Economics 2120 Spring 2020. Honors Core: Rights and Harms

 

ECON 2120 Honors Core: Rights and Harms

Course and Instructor Information

Course Title: ECON 2120 Honors Core: Rights and Harms
Credits: 3
Prerequisites: Any 1000-level course in Economics (may be taken concurrently).
Instructor: Richard N. Langlois
Room 304 Oak Hall
E-mail: richard.langlois@uconn.edu
Phone: (860) 486-3472
Office Hours: Tuesdays 11:00-12:00 and Thursdays 11:00-12:00 and 3:30-4:30.

Course Materials

Required Materials:

Course Description

This course will expose students to a conceptual framework at the intersection of law, economics, and philosophy – what we can call the paradigm of rights and harms.  Working within this framework, you will analyze and debate a large set of controversial social issues.  The goal of the course is to encourage you to think critically and rigorously about such issues and to hone your skills in argument and persuasion.

Consider a famous legal case analyzed by the Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase.  A physician sets up an examination room with a wall that is shared by a candy factory.  Noise from the candy machinery makes it impossible for the doctor to examine patients with a stethoscope.  If the candy factory has the right to make noise, the doctor is harmed; if the doctor has a right to quiet, the factory is harmed.  Economists and philosophers have developed ways of thinking about who should get the right – and thus who should bear the harm – in cases like these.  Most if not all controversial social issues take exactly this form: who has the right?  Who is harmed, and in what way?  As we will see, in many of these cases, the harms are immaterial: there is no tangible emission like noise.  I may harm you (make you angry or unhappy) by giving a speech in favor of Marxism or by selling my kidney to the highest bidder – even if you are nowhere in the vicinity and learn of my behavior only through a third party.  Should I have the right to engage in these behaviors?  Or should you have the right to stop me?

This course will be based around discussion.  It goes without saying that you will not be expected to come to any predetermined conclusion (or, indeed, any conclusion at all) about the issues we discuss.  You will be graded entirely on the rigor of your reasoning and the clarity of your argument.  It also goes without saying that class discussion must always be mature, collegial, and open-minded.  One controversial social issue that – somewhat self-referentially – we may touch on is the idea that instructors (or other students) in university classes can harm others by discussing distressing subjects and that therefore instructors must warn students of any potential distress.  Consider yourself warned.  All ideas are fair game, even as we strive for an open, friendly – and fun – classroom environment.

Course Goals

By the end of the semester, you should be able to:

  • Understand and manipulate fundamental concepts in the economics and philosophy of law, including:
    • The basic economics of rights, including “artificial” rights.
    • Rights in rem and as a “bundle of sticks.”
    • The Coase Theorem.
    • Deontological versus consequentialist accounts of rights and rights assignment.
    • The differences among technological externalities, pecuniary externalities, and moralisms.
    • Property rules, liability rules, and inalienability as enforcement mechanisms.
    • Eminent domain.
    • Think critically and clearly about controversial social issues.
    • Reason more rigorously and argue more lucidly in oral presentations and writing.

    Grading

    Course Requirements and Grading

    We will have an in-class exam after part 1 of the course, just to make sure everyone is on the same page with the conceptual framework we will be using.  That will count 25 per cent of the grade.  For parts 2 and 3 of the course, I will set up a schedule of presentation on topics from the course outline above.  I will then assign teams to each topic.  (In keeping with the spirit of the course, if you would prefer a different topic, you can try to trade with someone.)  Each topic will consume one full class period.  You will be graded on the quality of the presentation (rigor, depth, background research, and ability to generate discussion), but nice visuals won’t hurt.  All members of the team will receive the same grade for the presentation (25 per cent of the grade).  In addition, you individually will also submit an 8-10 page paper on a topic other than the one of your group presentation (25 per cent of the grade).  Consult with me if you want to write your paper on a topic not on the list for presentations or even not on the syllabus at all.  The paper will be due at the end of the semester.  There also be a final exam (25 per cent of your grade).  This will be a relatively short essay exam that will ask you to integrate ideas from several of the student presentations.

     

    Summary of Course Grading:

    In-class exam on Part 1

    25%

    Team presentations

    25%

    Individual paper (8-10 pages)

    25%

    Final Exam

    25%

    Grade

    Letter Grade

    GPA

    93-100

    A

    4.0

    90-92

    A-

    3.7

    87-89

    B+

    3.3

    83-86

    B

    3.0

    80-82

    B-

    2.7

    77-79

    C+

    2.3

    73-76

    C

    2.0

    70-72

    C-

    1.7

    67-69

    D+

    1.3

    63-66

    D

    1.0

    60-62

    D-

    0.7

    <60

    F

    0.0

    Sequence of topics

    Part 1: Rights and Harms.

    1.1. Rights.

    Adelstein, chapter 1.
    Armen Alchian, “Some Economics of Property Rights,” Il Politico 30(4): 816-829 (1965).
    Podcast: Henry E. Smith on Property, September 9, 2011.

    1.2. Harms.

    Adelstein, chapter 2.
    Ronald H. Coase, “The Problem of Social Cost,” Journal of Law and Economics 3: 1-44 (1960).
    J. David Goodman, “How Much Is a View Worth in Manhattan? Try $11 Million,” The New York Times, July 22, 2019.
    Video: Three ways to control externalities.

    1.3. Locke v. Bentham.

    John Stuart Mill, On Liberty. London: J. W. Parker and Son, 1859, chapter 1.
    Amartya Sen, “ The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal,” Journal of Political Economy 78(1): 152-157 (1970). N.B. Do not try to follow all of the formalism in this paper (unless you really want to). Just try to understand the question Sen is posing and the implications of the result he comes to.
    Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974, especially chapter 3.

    1.4. Eminent Domain.

    Adelstein, chapter 3.
    Guido Calabresi and A. Douglas Melamed, “Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral,” Harvard Law Review 85(6): 1089-1128 (1972).
    Thomas J. Miceli and Kathleen Segerson, “Takings,” in B. Bouckaert and G. De Geest, eds., Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, Volume VI. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2000, pp. 328-357.
    Film: Little Pink House.

     

    Part 2: Examples of property rights.

    2.1. Emissions permits.

    Adelstein, chapters 5, 6, and 7.
    Robert N. Stavins, “Cap and Trade Is the Only Feasible Way of Cutting Emissions,” The New York Times, June 2, 2014.
    Video: A Deeper Look at Tradable Allowances.

    2.2. Intellectual property rights.

    Adelstein, chapter 4.

    2.3. Taxi medallions.

    Winnie Hu, “Taxi Medallions, Once a Safe Investment, Now Drag Owners into Debt,” The New York Times, September 10, 2017.
    Gordon Tullock, “The Transitional Gains Trap,” The Bell Journal of Economics 6(2): 671-678 (1975).

    2.4. Slavery, serfdom, and self-ownership.

    Stanley L. Engerman, “Slavery, Serfdom, and Other Forms of Coerced Labour: Similarities and Differences,” in M. L. Bush, ed., Serfdom and Slavery: Studies in Legal Bondage, London: Longman, 1996.
    Rick Geddes and Dean Lueck, “The Gains from Self-Ownership and the Expansion of Women’s Rights,” The American Economic Review 92(4): 1079-1092 (September 2002).

    2.5. The Reserve Clause and free agency.

    Simon Rottenberg, “The Baseball Players’ Labor Market,” Journal of Political Economy 64(3): 242-258 (1956).

    2.6. Immigration and citizenship rights.

    Christopher Coyne and Peter Boettke, “Institutions, Immigration and Identity,”  NYU Journal of Law and LIberty 2: 131-156 (2006).

    Michael Lokshin and Martin Ravallion, “A Market for Work Permits,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper w26590, December 2019.

    2.7. Animal rights.

    Gonzolo Villanueva, “Against Animal Liberation? Peter Singer and His Critics,” Sophia 57: 5–19 (2018).

    Part 3: Who should get the right?

    3.1 Pecuniary harms: antitrust.

    Adelstein, pp. 97-109.
    Robert Bork, The Antitrust Paradox. New York: The Free Press, 1978, chapter 2.
    Harold Demsetz, “Barriers to Entry,” American Economic Review 72(1): 47-57 (1982).

    3.2. Immaterial harms: “moralisms.”

    3.2.1. Speech.

    John Stuart Mill, On Liberty. London: J. W. Parker and Son, 1859, chapter 2.
    Brian Eule, “Watch Your Words, Professor,” Stanford Magazine, January-February 2015.
    Rebecca Lurye, “UConn Tackling Debate of Free Speech on Campus in Wake of ‘OK to Be White’ Event,” The Hartford Courant, December 10, 2017.
    Russell Blair, “UConn Students Arrested in Racial Slur Case Sue University on First Amendment Grounds,” The Hartford Courant, January 14, 2020.
    Video: Why Social Media Shouldn’t Censor Hate Speech.

    3.2.2. Commercial transactions and speech.

    Robert P. George and Sherif Girgis, “A Baker’s First Amendment Rights,” The New York Times, December 4, 2017.
    Emily Cochrane, “Sarah Huckabee Sanders Was Asked to Leave Restaurant over White House Work,” The New York Times, June 23, 2018.

    2.2.3. Broadcasting, free speech, and spectrum rights..

    Ronald H. Coase, “The Federal Communications Commission,” The Journal of Law & Economics 2: 1-40 (1959).
    Thomas W. Hazlett, “Physical Scarcity, Rent Seeking, and the First Amendment,’’ Columbia Law Review 97: 905–944 (May 1997).

    3.2.4. “Repugnant” transactions.

    3.2.4.1 “Price gouging.”

    James Surowiecki, “In Praise of Efficient Price Gouging,” MIT Technology Review, August 19, 2014.
    Neil Irwin, “Why Surge Prices Make Us So Mad: What Springsteen, Home Depot and a Nobel Winner Know,” The New York Times, October 14, 2017.

    3.2.4.2. Selling organs.

    Philip J. Cook and Kimberly D. Krawiec, “If We Pay Football Players, Why Not Kidney Donors?” Regulation, Spring 2018, pp. 12-17.
    Film: Dirty Pretty Things.

    3.2.4.3. Surrogate motherhood.

    Ross Douthat, “The Handmaids of Capitalism,” The New York Times, June 20, 2018.

    3.3. Self-harms: paternalism and “internalities.”

    Christopher Buccafusco and Christopher Jon Sprigman, “Who Deserves Those 4 Inches of Airplane Seat Space?Slate, September 23, 2014.
    The New Paternalism: the Avuncular State,” The Economist, April 6, 2006.
    Mario J. Rizzo and Douglas Glen Whitman, “The Knowledge Problem of New Paternalism,” BYU Law Review 2009: 905-968 (2009).

    Student Responsibilities and Resources

    As a member of the University of Connecticut student community, you are held to certain standards and academic policies. In addition, there are numerous resources available to help you succeed in your academic work. This section provides a brief overview to important standards, policies and resources.

    Student Code.

    You are responsible for acting in accordance with the University of Connecticut’s Student Code Review and become familiar with these expectations. In particular, make sure you have read the section that applies to you on Academic Integrity:

    Cheating and plagiarism are taken very seriously at the University of Connecticut. As a student, it is your responsibility to avoid plagiarism. See Plagiarism: How to Recognize it and How to Avoid It. Copyrighted materials within the course are only for the use of students enrolled in the course for purposes associated with this course and may not be retained or further disseminated.

    Netiquette and Communication.

    At all times, course communication with fellow students and the instructor are to be professional and courteous. It is expected that you proofread all your written communication, including discussion posts, assignment submissions, and mail messages. If you are new to online learning or need a netiquette refresher, please look at this guide titled, The Core Rules of Netiquette.

    Academic Support Resources.

    Technology and Academic Help provides a guide to technical and academic assistance. Students needing special accommodations should work with the University’s Center for Students with Disabilities (CSD). You may contact CSD by calling (860) 486-2020 or by emailing csd@uconn.edu. If your request for accommodation is approved, CSD will send an accommodation letter directly to your instructor(s) so that special arrangements can be made. (Note: Student requests for accommodation must be filed each semester.) Blackboard measures and evaluates accessibility using two sets of standards: the WCAG 2.0 standards issued by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act issued in the United States federal government.” (Retrieved March 24, 2013 from Blackboard’s website)

    Adding or Dropping a Course.

    If you should decide to add or drop a course, there are official procedures to follow:

    You must officially drop a course to avoid receiving an “F” on your permanent transcript. Simply discontinuing class or informing the instructor you want to drop does not constitute an official drop of the course. For more information, refer to the Undergraduate Catalog.

    Academic Calendar.

    The University’s Academic Calendar contains important semester dates.

    Students with Disabilities.

    The University of Connecticut is committed to protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities and assuring that the learning environment is accessible. If you anticipate or experience physical or academic barriers based on disability or pregnancy, please let me know immediately so that we can discuss options. Students who require accommodations should contact the Center for Students with Disabilities, Wilbur Cross Building Room 204, (860) 486-2020, or http://csd.uconn.edu/.

    Absences from Class because of Religious Observances and Extra-Curricular Activities.

    Faculty and instructors are expected to reasonably accommodate individual religious practices unless doing so would result in fundamental alteration of class objectives or undue hardship to the University’s legitimate business purposes. Such accommodations may include rescheduling an exam or giving a make-up exam, allowing a presentation to be made on a different date or assigning the student appropriate make-up work that is intrinsically no more difficult than the original assignment. Faculty and instructors are strongly encouraged to allow students to complete work missed due to participation in extra-curricular activities that enrich their experience, support their scholarly development, and benefit the university community. Examples include participation in scholarly presentations, performing arts, and intercollegiate sports, when the participation is at the request of, or coordinated by, a University official. Students should be encouraged to review the course syllabus at the beginning of the semester for potential conflicts and promptly notify their instructor of any anticipated accommodation needs. Students are responsible for making arrangements in advance to make up missed work.

    Policy Against Discrimination, Harassment and Related Interpersonal Violence

    The University is committed to maintaining an environment free of discrimination or discriminatory harassment directed toward any person or group within its community – students, employees, or visitors. Academic and professional excellence can flourish only when each member of our community is assured an atmosphere of mutual respect. All members of the University community are responsible for the maintenance of an academic and work environment in which people are free to learn and work without fear of discrimination or discriminatory harassment. In addition, inappropriate amorous relationships can undermine the University’s mission when those in positions of authority abuse or appear to abuse their authority. To that end, and in accordance with federal and state law, the University prohibits discrimination and discriminatory harassment, as well as inappropriate amorous relationships, and such behavior will be met with appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from the University. Additionally, to protect the campus community, all non-confidential University employees (including faculty) are required to report sexual assaults, intimate partner violence, and/or stalking involving a student that they witness or are told about to the Office of Institutional Equity. The University takes all reports with the utmost seriousness. Please be aware that while the information you provide will remain private, it will not be confidential and will be shared with University officials who can help.