Abstract
Reputation is the foundation of theories of private ordering. These
theories contend that commercial actors will act honestly because if
they do not, they will get a bad reputation and others will not want to
do business with them in the future. But economists and scholars of
networks increasingly realize that reputation has its defects. Mixed in
with trustworthy and useful reputation information on which commerce of
all sorts relies is inaccurate, distorted, misguided, or outright
fraudulent information. Much of the existing literature about
reputation’s flaws focuses on unintentional distortions caused by
biases, the requirements of social niceties, and the dearth of fully
representative information. This Article, by contrast, approaches the
problem of the distortion of reputation from the dark side. It uses a
rich set of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century English court cases and
merchant correspondence to examine how the deliberate manipulation of
reputation, and, importantly, people’s failure to verify the gossip and
rumors creating such reputation, enabled fraud. It turns out that
reputation was “a complex process,” even in interconnected early modern
markets in which merchants did business face-to-face and participated in
active gossip networks. Even being caught, tried, and found guilty of a
serious fraud did not necessarily undermine one’s business and
perceived trustworthiness in these networks, which raises questions
about how much the merchants depended upon reputation when making
decisions about whom to trust.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1995-2028 |
Number of pages | 33 |
Journal | Cardozo Law Review |
Volume | 40 |
Issue number | 5 |
State | Published - Jul 22 2019 |
Keywords
- Reputation
- fraud
- bankruptcy
- England
- legal history
- private ordering
- commercial law
- law & economics