The Case for an Innovation Principle: A Comparative Law and Economics Analysis
GAICIL Insights
The precautionary principle spread across jurisdictions from the late 1990s. The article traces its economic consequences in the WTO, the European Union, France and the United Kingdom, and argues that it rewards risk-aversion at the expense of innovation, a factor in Europe’s sluggish growth.
Its answer is an innovation principle to counterbalance precaution, with concrete recommendations at the end of the article. The debate over how to regulate AI under scientific uncertainty is the same debate, and this article frames it.
Abstract
After the rise of the precautionary principle (or approach) in the late 1990s in a number of jurisdictions, the economic consequences of this newly created principle of law have unfolded. Such consequences were either acclaimed – for providing a minimisation of a number of externalities – or lambasted – for providing justificatory grounds for the prohibition of potentially propitious innovations due to the existence of scientific uncertainties. Whereas innovation has increasingly become of salient importance in today’s economies, European economies face sluggish economic growth rates partly caused by a regulatory framework where risk-aversion is incentivized. The precautionary principle induces and favours risk-aversion at the expense of innovation. This Article discusses the law and economic foundations and implications of the precautionary principle in the WTO, the European Union, France and the United Kingdom. Having introduced the importance of law in stifling innovation and discussed the current precautionary principle, this Article vouches for an innovation principle to come to the fore in order to counterbalance the innovation-costly precautionary principle. A number of recommendations are proposed at the end of the article.1
Source of this abstract: St Mary’s University institutional repository (link), not the publisher.
Takeaway
“The precautionary principle induces and favours risk-aversion at the expense of innovation.”
Quoted verbatim from the author’s abstract.
Notes
- Aurelien Portuese, The Case for an Innovation Principle: A Comparative Law and Economics Analysis, 15 Manchester J. Int’l Econ. L. 214 (2018), https://research.stmarys.ac.uk/id/eprint/2788/. Abstract quoted verbatim from the St Mary’s University institutional repository (not the publisher), https://research.stmarys.ac.uk/id/eprint/2788/. ↩
Cite as: Aurelien Portuese, The Case for an Innovation Principle: A Comparative Law and Economics Analysis, 15 Manchester J. Int’l Econ. L. 214 (2018), https://research.stmarys.ac.uk/id/eprint/2788/
Header image: 2020-12-19 e-scuter on pavement.jpg by E961, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
