Thursday, December 12, 2013

Responses to Twitter Q&A with Nick Parrillo

We recently invited readers to participate in a Twitter interview with Yale Law School's Nicholas Parrillo (his recent LHB posts are available here). Twitter aficionado and former LHB guest blogger Joshua Stein (@LawHistory) collected the questions last week. Today he posted Professor Parrillo's tweet-length responses. As promised, here's the full interview:
PREFATORY THANK-YOU (in 1 tweet):

before giving my responses, a big thanks to @lawhistory for doing the interview and everyone for such interesting (& succinct!) questions
QUESTION 1

from @kylefgraham

to what extent did the designers of for-profit systems account for distortions that the profit motive might create?

ANSWER 1 (in 2 tweets):

@kylefgraham designing incentives rationally was major challenge, esp. for legislatures that oft lacked info to do it well, but...1/2

@kylefgraham...some attempts were sophisticated e.g. if navy too focused on taking merchantmen, offer competing bounty to sink warships 2/2
QUESTION 2

from @gauthamrao

fascinated to hear whether NP argument links w/new history of capitalism


ANSWER 2 (in 3 tweets):

@gauthamrao our thinking today re capitalsm & regulation premised on distinction b/t state & market; my ch 2 helps to show how state... 1/3

@gauthamrao ...and market get differentiated in the 1st place: Americans c. 1830 decide public officials’ tasks must... 2/3

@gauthamrao ...have their prices legislatively fixed, rather than bargained for 3/3



QUESTION 3

from @kmtani

For NP: Is argument consistent w/ Balogh's Gov't Out of Sight synthesis? Or do we now need to revise?

ANSWER 3 (in 4 tweets):

@kmtani I see book as broadly consistent w/BB: my Part 1 is on officers’ $ incentives to treat laity as “customers,” so governance...1/4

@kmtani ...was oft subjectively experienced as voluntary transaction; my Part 2 is on officers’ $ incentives... 2/4

@kmtani ...to target laity for enforcement, which is NOT out of sight, BUT such incentives are pretty late in BB’s period & short-lived 3/4

@kmtani +my view that reformers replaced enforcmnt incentivs w/salaries to foster govt-laity cooperation fits BB’s view of new liberals 4/4



QUESTION 4

from @AppellateDaily

Would ask him, as a former clerk, re things most people might not know about the DC Cir. and his thoughts on recent kerfuffles.

ANSWER 4 (in 3 tweets):

@AppellateDaily as student of admin law & legal history, recent kerfuffles make me ask how DC Cir noms became so high-stakes 1/3

@AppellateDaily up to 1970, DC Cir was nothing special, but advent of hard look review in 70s raised stakes 2/3

@AppellateDaily irony that hard look rev was originated by liberals (Bazelon, JS Wright) but now Dems may well be ones who fear it most 3/3



QUESTION 5

from @MDAppeal

I'm interested in relationship btwn for-profit structure & the fact that, pre-DOJ, USAG was part-time job w/ part-time salary.

ANSWER 5 (in 2 tweets):

@MDAppeal I think part-time status (& permission to moonlight) doesn’t have necessary connection to for-profit pay for official acts 1/2

@MDAppeal US Attorneys were part-time both before & after their govt compensation was changed in 1896 from conviction fees to salaries 2/2



QUESTION 6

from @LeeWBowden

is insulation of prize judges from communities always desirable? perhaps also diminishes local institutional utility

ANSWER 6 (in 2 tweets):

@LeeWBowden depends on what u think is proper role of prize judge; if he’s agent of local port community, insulation is bad, but... 1/2

@LeeWBowden ...if he’s agent of nat’l govt that wants to avoid antagonizing neutral powers hurt by privateers, insulation good 2/2

Thanks to Josh Stein for experimenting with this novel interview format and for allowing our readers to benefit from the results!

No comments: