Ask more, awarded more: Evidence from Taiwan’s courts

Abstract

Whether a plaintiff is awarded more simply because she has asked for more is a fascinating question. The existing studies are predominantly experimental, as the “control group” in the experiments hardly exists in reality. Using Taiwan’s transaction data on land sales and leases to control for case differences, and matching them with adjudications in the court data, we show that the plaintiff’s claim, even if not based on market evidence, increases the judge’s award. Simultaneous equations model allows us to control for the unobsevables that affect both claims and awards. We also show that the release of public information weakens this effect.