Author: Sarah Waldeck


Update To A PayPal Christmas

At, Prof. Michael Froomkin responded to Tuesday’s post about efforts to entice consumers to use PayPal instead of credit cards for their Internet shopping. Froomkin’s basic argument is the same as the one made in the comments to the original post: credit cards are more advantageous to consumers than PayPal, primarily because credit cards offer more protection to those who are dissatisfied with the goods they have purchased. The comments to Froomkin’s post discuss whether PayPal or credit cards are better for consumers, and what the loss of interchange fees means for credit card companies.

To clarify my first post, payment intermediaries (whether a credit card company, PayPal or something else ) make consumers and merchants better off. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine Web commerce existing without them. What I find interesting is how payment providers solve the chicken-or-the-egg problem that I referenced in my initial post; or in other words, why some payment options flop while others become widespread.

Right now merchants are offering consumers immediate benefits for a decision to use PayPal instead of a credit card. I’ll bet that many holiday shoppers will be unable to resist offers of free shipping or discounts from the retail price. Of course, consumers may regret their decision to use PayPal (and to make the purchase in the first instance) if they are unhappy and neither PayPal nor the merchant responds positively to their complaints. But if PayPal is going to take off as a real competitor to credit cards, consumers are going to have to use PayPal more than once; that is, it is going to have to become their preferred form of payment. Unless that happens, merchants who have changed their Web payment technology to accommodate PayPal have made a bad bet.

All of this means that how PayPal responds to the criticism of its buyer protection program will go a long way toward determining whether PayPal really takes off, or whether it remains a service that most consumers associate with eBay and not with “traditional” Web retailers.


A PayPal Christmas

santa.jpegJust in time for your holiday shopping, here’s a way to stick it to those credit card companies: use PayPal for your Internet shopping.

The New Times is reporting that high-end Web retailers are introducing promotions designed to attract consumers willing to use credit card alternatives like PayPal and Google Checkout. A quick tour of PayPal’s website shows that lower-end merchants like FTD and Avon are getting into the game as well.

Why do these retailers want to lure you away from your credit card? It’s mostly about processing fees, which merchants have been fighting with renewed vigor. Last spring the Washington Post reported that retailers were asking government to regulate per-transaction fees, which credit card companies collect from merchants each time you swipe your card. Credit card companies countered that retailers were seeking price controls. Now merchants are hoping that consumers will simply use an alternative form of electronic payment. PayPal and similar services charge merchants lower processing fees and offer other advantages, such as not requiring retailers to reimburse them for fraudulent purchases.

As David Evans and Richard Schmalensee describe in their book Paying With Plastic, payment systems are multi-sided platform networks. This means that PayPal and other payment providers are intermediaries that can make both consumers and merchants better off. But because a payment network is multi-sided, the benefit to a party of the network depends on how many parties are on the other side of the platform. In other words, consumers don’t care about how many other consumers use PayPal; they just care about how many retailers accept PayPal. Retailers don’t care much about how many other retailers accept PayPal; instead they care about how many consumers use PayPal.

Read More


Twenty-Five Years of Broken Windows

police.jpgJames Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling recently revisited their broken windows theory of policing in a brief essay that appears in the November issue of The Atlantic. In a 1982 issue of that same magazine, they advanced their now well-known hypothesis that a decrease in visible signs of public disorder would lead to a reduction in crime rates. To be fair, the format of the essay—which appeared as one of many commenting on the “The Future of the American Idea”—did not lend itself to nuanced reflection. But because broken windows helped make community policing commonplace, sparked proposals for dramatic changes in criminal procedure doctrine, and is a key element in the biography of Rudolph Giuliani, Wilson and Kelling’s readers can be forgiven for hoping for a bit more.

In their new essay, Wilson and Kelling write, “Virtually all of the evidence we have from studies of police suggests that restoring order is associated with a drop in crime. This is reassuring, but it may not be conclusive. The idea has never been fully tested.” This does not satisfactorily answer scholars who have questioned whether a reduction in serious crime actually follows an increase in public order. Most importantly, it does not address whether a drop in serious crime—if it occurs—stems from the reduction in public disorder or from the increased surveillance that aggressive misdemeanor arrests make possible.

Wilson and Kelling also write, “Decency in public places may be only a small part of the American idea, but especially for those people living in dangerous, gang-ridden neighborhoods, it is an important one.” This is a statement with which it is difficult to argue. But it says nothing about whether constraining disorder is the best use of limited police resources, or how the police choose their targets in a public order campaign, or whether addressing disorder can ever mean more than moving it to a less visible place. We would all benefit from knowing more about how the original proponents of broken windows would answer these difficult questions.


Corporate College Presidents and Super-Sized Endowments

Yesterday The New York Times had two articles that left me thinking about university endowments. One discussed the increased Congressional pressure on charitable institutions to spend down their endowments; the other noted the soaring salaries of college presidents. Combined, the articles highlight the need to challenge conventional thinking about what constitutes a strong endowment.

The Times reports that in the last 10 years, the amount of assets held by non-profits has nearly doubled, to $2.5 trillion by the end of 2005. Educational institutions held almost $600 billion. (If nothing else, employees deciding whether to enroll in TIAA-CREF should take note of what compounding interest and tax-free gains can yield!) Private foundations are required to spend 5% of their assets each year; educational institutions are not subject to even this minimal requirement.

Grinnell College, with 1500 students and an endowment of over $1 billion, was highlighted in the Times article. Russell Osgood, Grinnell’s president, points out that Grinnell gave about $1 million more in financial aid than it received in revenue from tuition and fees. He also says,“We’re here to ensure the long-term health and function of Grinnell College. That’s our sole objective.” But the Times does not quote Osgood as explaining why more than $1 billion is necessary to protect a small liberal arts college against an economic downturn. Rather, Osgood says:

Society at large benefits from those monies being invested in our economy. . . . The United States has a problem with its rate of savings, and one of the few bright spots are colleges and universities, which are two of the largest contributors to the national rate of savings. Anyone thinking about reducing endowments should think long and hard about what that might do to the overall ability to generate jobs and fund good ideas.

Maybe, although no-one is suggesting that universities empty their coffers. And the national savings rate is what not alumni were thinking about when they wrote checks to their alma mater, or what Congress was considering when it extended favorable tax treatment to educational institutions and their donors.

Read More


Oregon Supreme Court Considers Circumcision of 12-Year-Old Boy

No graphic for this post, tempted though I am . . . .

On November 6, the Oregon Supreme Court heard a dispute between parents over the circumcision of their 12-year-old son. The father, who has recently converted to Judaism and has full custody of the boy, wants him circumcised. The mother is trying to stop the procedure and argues that it is both sexual and physical abuse. The lower court dismissed her challenge but would not permit the circumcision to occur until all appeals were exhausted.

There’s been plenty of talk about this case over at Law Blog. Reading the comments provides a snapshot of the debate over whether the United States should continue its practice of male infant circumcision. Law Blog has comments about the procedure’s health benefits and associated risks; assertions about whether circumcised males experience less sexual pleasure than uncircumcised males; and questions about whether one can criticize male circumcision and avoid being labeled anti-semitic.

I’ve argued elsewhere that even non-religious infant male circumcision is driven primarily by cultural concerns, not medical ones. Sociological research has shown that many parents decide to circumcise because they want their son to resemble his father or his peers. Moreover, the cultural ubiquitousness of infant male circumcision substantially affects the debate that surrounds the practice. Doctors, academics and judges cannot help but be influenced by the fact that they are likely to be circumcised themselves (particularly if they are Caucasian), or to have only been exposed to circumcised sexual partners, or to have decided to circumcise their own children. This cannot help but color the debate, probably in ways that even the participants themselves are unaware.

The Oregon case provides an interesting twist because the child is 12. At Law Blog, readers have emphasized the OUCH factor and argued that the boy can decide whether to undergo circumcision when he turns 18. But some other cultures believe that circumcision is too painful and traumatic for newborns; instead, they circumcise boys during late elementary school, as part of a passage into manhood.

An article in the NY Sun quotes Geoff Miller at NYU as stating that he would “be quite shocked or at least surprised” if the Oregon Supreme Court reverses the lower court. Miller has good reason for his opinion, as courts have been unsympathetic to non-custodial parents who seek to prevent the circumcision of infants, and to custodial parents who claim the procedure was done without their informed consent. Still, this case may turn out differently than the rest. The Pacific Northwest has the lowest circumcision rates of anywhere in the county. The boy is 12. The combination of these two factors may mean that judges in Oregon view this case through a different cultural lens.


Cash Is No Longer King

money.jpgAmerican Council of the Blind v. Paulson is scheduled for argument before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on November 19. You probably heard about the case when the district court issued its ruling almost a year ago; it orders the Treasury Department to design and issue paper currency that permits the blind to readily distinguish between different denominations. Plaintiffs invoked the Rehabilitation Act, which aims to ensure that the disabled fully participate in today’s society. They successfully argued that such participation requires that the visually impaired be able to conveniently and confidentially exchange currency in ordinary daily purchases. The district court’s opinion was notable for its silence about the striking changes in the ways that Americans pay for goods and services, as well as its failure to address the staggering ancillary costs that accompany major currency change.

As my colleague Erik Lillquist and I have written about here, currency is just one component of payment systems in the United States, a system that has undergone massive transformation over the last several decades. Of course the American Council for the Blind is correct when it asserts that the blind need to be able to engage in everyday commerce. But this sort of participation rarely necessitates the use of currency, which is increasingly becoming a twentieth-century relic.

Read More


Advising Female Graduates

Hello to everyone and thanks to Dan for inviting me to post this month.

I wanted to begin by noting an article that appeared in today’s New York Times. In it, Lisa Belkin surveys the flood of research on how women in the workplace are viewed differently than men. Belkin’s article cites many studies, all of which will sound familiar—probably because if you haven’t heard of the study she is discussing, you’ve heard of one that had similar results. These studies all boil down to the same conclusion: women are perceived to lack whatever qualities are most valued in the workplace, at least when compared to men who are behaving the same way as their female counterparts.

As Belkin explains, women are advised:

Don’t get angry. But do take charge. Be nice. But not too nice. Speak up. But don’t seem like you talk too much.

She continues:

These are academic and professional studies, not whimsical online polls, and each time I read one I feel deflated. What are women supposed to do with this information? Transform overnight? And if so, into what? How are we supposed to be assertive, but not, at the same time?

Belkin’s article has made me consider what I say to graduating female law students. My gender-specific advice always involves the thorny issue of balancing a legal career and children. I don’t say anything about the situation that all female graduates will find themselves in: that is, being a woman in a legal workplace.

I’m wondering what advice others give on this topic, or what valuable counsel others have received. If you have anything useful, please pass it along.