Faced with increased levels of international competition and mounting budget deficits some developed, Western economies have responded by introducing trade restrictions. This book uses a comparative analysis of eight leading industrial nations (including Japan, the United States, West Germany and Britain) to demonstrate that such policies are mistaken. Alternatives to trade restrictions, including subsidies for industries and labour-market policy instruments are also shown to have their drawbacks, and the book emphasises the need for countries to find and exploit policies which fulfil their own political and social needs but which are least injurious to their trading partners.

The last 20 years have seen a transformation in the level and nature of international trade. Oil price shocks, world-wide recessions and the globalization of capital markets have made the conditions of international trading increasingly volatile. Some of the most pressing problems for the developed economies of the West have been caused by the impact of imports from the emergent Newly Industrializing Countries (NICs), particularly where these have been concentrated in established and important sectors of the economy. The strain upon the global trading system which has been apparent in recent years is evidenced in the growth of the "new protectionism" - the adaptation of trade restrictions by some of the world's leading trading nations. This book argues that these are mistaken. Based on a comparative study of eight leading industrial powers, including Japan, the US, West Germany and Britain, it concludes that the policies adopted are economically inefficient and do not fulfil the ends for which they were designed. Instead the authors argue that countries need to try and develop the policies which are least injurious to their trading partners. Retaliatory protectionism is mutually da

In the mid 1980s, there was a crisis in the availability, affordability, and adequacy of liability insurance in the United States and Canada. Mass tort claims such as the asbestos, DES, and Agent Orange litigation generated widespread public attention, and the tort system came to assume a heightened prominence in American life. While some scholars debate whether or not any such crisis still exists, there has been an increasing political, judicial and academic questioning of the goals and future of the tort system.
Exploring the Domain of Tort Law reviews the evidence on the efficacy of the tort system and its alternatives. By looking at empirical evidence in five major categories of accidents--automobile, medical malpractice, product-related accidents, environmental injuries, and workplace injuries--the authors evaluate the degree to which the tort system conforms to three normative goals: deterrence, corrective justice, and distributive justice. In each case, the authors review the deterrence and compensatory properties of the tort system, and then review parallel bodies of evidence on regulatory, penal, and compensatory alternatives.
Most of the academic literature on the tort system has traditionally been doctrinal or, in recent years, highly theoretical. Very little of this literature provides an in-depth consideration of how the system works, and whether or not there are any feasible alternatives. Exploring the Domain of TortLaw contributes valuable new evidence to the tort law reform debate. It will be of interest to academic lawyers and economists, policy analysts, policy professionals in government and research organizations, and all those affected by tort law reform.