In new research, Jitendra Aswani finds that India’s mandatory corporate social responsibility contribution for large firms increased corporate borrowing costs, but transparency and clear communication to investors about these contributions reduced the additional costs.
Based on a new report from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, John Farrell argues that the monopoly granted to private, investor-owned electric utilities by state governments is preventing the United States from accessing cheaper, cleaner, and more dependable electricity.
Matthias Breuer, Wei Cai, Anthony Le, and Felix Vetter find that gender minority representation on German works councils helps to improve worker welfare and productivity.
Diana Moss and Jason Gold write that the major private antitrust lawsuit involving how the National Collegiate Athletic Association governs compensation for college student athletes overreaches by remaking the model of college sports in the United States. Instead, the paradigm shift in college athletics should be deliberated and decided through the legislative process.
Gus Hurwitz replies to Jonathan Masur and Eric Posner’s May 8 article defending the Federal Trade Commission’s Congressional mandate to enforce a rule banning noncompetes. He argues that Congressional responses to FTC rulemaking in the 1970s suggest courts are unlikely to find that the FTC possesses such authority, either as a matter of statutory interpretation or under the major questions doctrine.
In new research, Sarah Schindler and Kellen Zale find that the vast majority of the most populous cities in the United States do not directly notify renters of land-use hearings. Such hearings provide a forum for local members of the public to voice opinions about how land should be used for housing and other construction and inform the decisions of policymakers. The failure to directly notify renters about these hearings can skew the decision-making process—and the housing market— toward homeowners and exacerbate anti-development tendencies in land-use law.
Lucian Bebchuk and Robert Jackson argue that the Tesla board’s prediction that restoring Musk’s old pay package would require no new compensation charge to Tesla’s financial statement seems not to have been based on any independent accounting advice. This could carry substantial risks for Tesla stockholders.
Lucian Bebchuk argues that, in response to the Delaware court decision invalidating the 2018 pay grant to Elon Musk, the Tesla board did not react with contrition and an attempt to improve its governance, but rather followed an approach of dismissal and defiance.