Haifa Conference

On Tuesday, Haifa University’s Law and Markets Forum hosted the Behavioral Analysis of Law: Markets, Institutions, and Contracts conference.  This was a wonderful event, well worth the trip to Israel.  Organizer Avishalom Tor did a fabulous job putting together the conference, matching up papers with commenters, and making sure that everyone had a good time. 

The papers covered a wide range of topics and methodologies. For example, Eyal Zamir, of Hebrew University, presented his paper on Notions of Fairness and Contingent Fees (commentary by Ronen Perry of Haifa), Zamir’s second study on people’s preferences regarding attorney’s fees with co-author Ilana Ritov.  Alon Harel, also of Hebrew University, presented his research on whether the Probability of Being Pivotal Affects Voting Decisions (commentary by Alan Miller of Haifa).  I had not seen either set of presenters or commenters in action before, so I very much enjoyed the in-person show.

Yuval Feldman of Bar Ilan was the co-author on two papers presented at the conference, one on Legal Uncertainty and Authenticity, with Shahar Lifshitz, also of Bar Ilan, and another with Orly Lobel, of University of San Diego, on Reporting Illegality (commentary by Faina Milman-Siva of Haifa).  Sadly, I had to duck out to teach a class during Orly’s presentation, but I understand it generated an exceptionally lively discussion, particularly their findings on gender and whistle-blowing.  Luckily, I was there for the Lifshitz-Feldman presentation and Yehuda Adar’s very thoughtful commentary. 

Daphna Lewinson-Zamir, of Hebrew University presented her research on Outcome Assessment, with commentary by Oren Gazal-Ayal of Haifa, and Amir Licht, of Herzliya Radziner presented his research on Expanded Rationality, with commentary by Omer Kimhi of Haifa.  Finally, Claire Hill (University of Minnesota) who it was great to see again after so many years, presented her research on Subprime Investors, with commentary by Adi Ayal of Bar Ilan.

For me, the conference was also an opportunity to catch up with old friends and see their current projects, and to make new friends who are doing interesting and innovative work.  The stars of the show, though, had to be the Haifa faculty, who did most of the commentary, kept the discussion lively, and gave up their presentation slots to make room for others.   As an example, Tal Zarsky began the day as a commenter at 9:00 a..m., ended the day at about 8:00 p.m. with a presentation of his own paper with Shmuel Becher on The Law of Open Doors (commentatary by Uri Benoliel, Academic Center of Law & Business Ramat Gan.), and spent the intervening time not only discussing the other papers, but teaching two classes. 

I knew that we were in for an unusually robust day when Dean Niva Elkin-Koren opened the conference by discussing one of her own recent papers, rather than giving the usual, largely ceremonial, opening remarks.  I was especially lucky with my commenter draw, Michal Gal, who offered thoughtful commentary on everything from antitrust law and enforcement to commodification, feminism, and the evolution of markets. 

The conference program is downloadable here (Download Haifa program), and many of the conference drafts are available from the conference website. More discussion to come in the next few weeks about some of the other interesting folks I’ve met here, and the projects that they’re working on.  For now though, I’m going to the spa and for a walk on the beach, if the weather stays sunny, to recover from an exhausting but exhilarating experience.

Comments

[Patrick S. O'Donnell]

I'm delighted you're having a wonderful time in Haifa. Concidentally, I have been reading about the history of Haifa, in particular, about its ethnic cleansing (de-Arabization) through implementation of Plan Dalet ('Plan D') by the Haganah (with the Irgun and the Stern Gang) in 1948. Specifically, this de-Arabiization of the city took place under Operation "Cleansing the Leaven" (the Palestinians being the bread and the flour) on Passover's eve, 21 April. What Palestinian notables remained after this operation were transferred from various parts of the city "into one single neighborhood, the crammed and small quarter of Wadi Nisnas, one of the city's poorest areas," the transfer process being an exemplary instance of ghettoization.

I was re-reading this and related material (by Ilan Pappe, among others) in response to Orly's paean to David Ben-Gurion over at Prawfs.

[dan m.]

Patrick, I do not understand why some people always have an urge to blacken Israel, at times ridiculously out of context. What you mention is highly controversial. But much more importantly, it is totally irrelevant. It is as relevant as the fact that you are dwelling in an area that "fell bloodlessly to a battalion of American soldiers under John C. Frémont on December 27, 1846, during the Mexican-American War" and became part of the expanding USA after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (a peace treaty that was dictated by the United States and provided for the Mexican Cession). History is a giddy thing.

[Patrick S. O'Donnell]

dan,

At least here you're not anonymous: thanks.

That you would interpret my comment solely in terms of an effort to "blacken Israel" only reinforces my sense that such things need to be said (that kind of 'black and white' thinking ill serves you).

My motivation can be explained by the sorts of reasons provided by Stanley Cohen in his States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering (2001) and Norman G. Finkelstein in Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History (2008 ed.).

What are you afraid of? The post is about Kim's experience in Haifa. I'm speaking to some things I learned about the recent history of Haifa, having never been there. Perhaps Kim can speak to these things, perhaps not, but's it's just a blog post and just a blog comment, and so I think "relevance" is in some degree in the eye of the beholder. To cite a similar case (insofar as I can recall it): when Roger Alford of Opinio Juris once visited Israel, readers such as myself queried him about the experiences of Palestinians, although that was not the topic of his post. Roger responded with first-hand experiences, including the statements of those whom he met.

Your historical analogy is absolutely irrelevant inasmuch as there is not an ongoing conflict of the sort in your historical case on par with that which todaty exists between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and a refusal to appreciate and understand the history of that conflict has and will impede any efforts to bring conflict resolution to the region. If you are going to resort to an analogy, items in the analogy should at least be comparable in the relevant sense(s).

[dan m.]

First, I think you confuse me with someone else. I am anonymous "here", and have not responded to your comments elsewhere.

Second, the analogy is sound. The fact that a conflict still exists in the middle east, but not on US soil, may be attributed to the fact that Israel, as opposed to the United States, has never demanded total capitulation and disenfranchisement of its enemies. The Palestinians, as opposed to Mexicans and Native Americans, can still vindicate their rights.

[Paul Horwitz]

I have no dog on the fight on the question of "blackening" Israel or not. But, Patrick, it does seem to me the comment is more off-topic here than it was with respect to the Ben-Gurion post. There, Orly posted about the religious and literary interests of a political figure and you wrote to add that there are other aspects of his biography and character (which is not to say that the two sets of traits can't coexist in one person, of course). Here, Kim spent 100 percent of the post discussing the conference itself, not the city in which it took place.

Of course you're free to argue if you wish that it is wrong to visit this city at all, or to do so without commenting on its history, or something of the sort, just as I suppose it's wrong to take a Caribbean vacation without writing about poverty, or to attend a conference in Mexico without writing about terrorism and narco-terrorism, or to (speaking as a Canadian) visit Cuba without talking about political repression, or to visit New York without opining on Columbia's land-grab, or to go to a football game in Alabama without holding forth on the civil rights movement, and on and on. You haven't done so, I should add. But then your comment is not so much relevant to the post as it is a kind of "speaking of which" addendum to a post that's not really speaking of the "which" you have in mind, which gives rise to the previous commenter's suggestion (again disregarding the "blackening Israel" point; what is it to me if Israel is either lauded or blackened?) that you used this post as an occasion to ride a hobby-horse.

[Kathy]

What's the big deal?

Someone says "hey, I just got back from doing X in place Y."

Someone responds with, "hey, I was reading about place Y, did you know . . ."

That's how conversations happen, right . . . which is the whole point of a blog, no?

[Kim Krawiec]

Thanks for the bit of history, Patrick. We've had no chance at all for sightseeing yet, so it's possible that when we finally do, this is a part of Haifa's history that people will point out or discuss. So far, though, I've really spent all the time teaching, presenting papers, attending workshops, and the like. Well, and today there is the spa resort . . .

[Roger Dennis]

Kim--take in the Bahai gardens and shrine..fantastic..r

[Kim Krawiec]

Thanks, Roger! It's on the agenda for this week -- looks amazing in photos.

[Dan Markel]

For what it's worth, I'm not the "Dan M." here.