| Popis: |
This chapter considers the institutional disadvantages of the courts that may warrant a high degree of deference, namely lack of economic expertise, limited access to information, lack of requisite institutional legitimacy, and courts’ susceptibility to ‘minoritarian bias’. It also highlights several institutional realities and procedural developments that may attenuate the weight of such comparative institutional disadvantages, such as courts’ specialisation in regulatory matters and the courts’ rules of procedure. The chapter then examines the institutional alternatives to a specialist court. It concludes that the best way to promote the error-correction function of judicial review in the assessment of economic evidence requires a balance to be struck, in which deference is accorded to regulatory agencies on institutional competencies grounds and some degree of epistemic diversity is introduced in courts. |
