Huabing Li

I am Huabing Li (李化冰), a PhD candidate at University of Hamburg, University of Bologna, and Erasmus University Rotterdam under European Doctorate in Law and Economics program, supervised by Prof. Dr. Roee Sarel (University of Hamburg) and Dr. Shu Li (Erasmus University Rotterdam).
My main research interest is in law and economics, including empirical legal research, modeling law, and experiments. My PhD thesis will focus on the future of courts reshaped by digitalization. You are always welcome to contact me for academic discussions and collaborations!

GitHub WeChat CV LinkedIn ORCID
Education

  • European Doctorate in Law and Economics European Doctorate in Law and Economics

    University of Hamburg, University of Bologna, and Erasmus University Rotterdam

    PhD candidate in law and economics 2024 - present

  • European Master in Law and Economics European Master in Law and Economics

    University of Hamburg, Ghent University, Pompeu Fabra University, and Erasmus University Rotterdam

    Joint LLM in law and economics 2023 - 2024

  • Renmin University of China Renmin University of China

    BEcon in trade and economics (major); LLB in law, BEng in computer science, and BBA in financial management (minor) 2019 - 2023

Main awards
  • DAAD Graduate School Full Scholarship 2024 - 2028
  • Erasmus Mundus Full Scholarship 2023 - 2024
  • China National Endeavor Scholarship 2022
  • Finalist prize in the American Mathematical Contest in Modelling 2022
  • First prize in the RUC “Innovation Cup” Academic Competition 2022
Main service
  • Editor and anonymous reviewer of Chaoyang Law Review 2022 - present
  • Anonymous reviewer of Crime, Law and Social Change 2024
Selected Publications
Utilitarian Proportionality: An Empirical Evidence of Crimes of Embezzlement and Bribery in China
Utilitarian Proportionality: An Empirical Evidence of Crimes of Embezzlement and Bribery in China

Huabing Li

2024 EMLE Midterm Meeting

Proportionality is a core principle in modern criminal law, reflecting the retributivist goal of matching the severity of punishments with the gravity of crime. However, from a utilitarian perspective, proportionality may be less important, and can even be sacrificed for enhancing crime deterrence and social efficiency. Are proportionality and utilitarianism compatible? We empirically examine whether more proportionate punishment conflicts with utilitarian goals, using China's 2016 reform aimed at reducing harsh punishments for crimes of embezzlement and bribery as evidence. Employing a novel municipal-level panel dataset on embezzlement crimes, bribery crimes, and misappropriation of public funds crimes from 2001 to 2020 and using a generalized difference-in-differences model to assess pre- and post-reform variations, we find that the reform succeeded in reducing the severity of punishments, not only because of the relaxation of penal standards, but also because offenders no longer have strong opportunistic incentives to commit serious crimes under a more reasonable hierarchy of marginal deterrence. Although the reform led to an overall increase in the number of crimes due to reduced deterrence, most of the increase is concentrated in minor offenses. In conclusion, the reform did not cause more severe social harm. These findings suggest that proportionality is compatible with utilitarianism and should also be an important consideration within the utilitarian framework, providing key insights for countries considering reducing excessively severe punishments.

Utilitarian Proportionality: An Empirical Evidence of Crimes of Embezzlement and Bribery in China
Utilitarian Proportionality: An Empirical Evidence of Crimes of Embezzlement and Bribery in China

Huabing Li

2024 EMLE Midterm Meeting

Proportionality is a core principle in modern criminal law, reflecting the retributivist goal of matching the severity of punishments with the gravity of crime. However, from a utilitarian perspective, proportionality may be less important, and can even be sacrificed for enhancing crime deterrence and social efficiency. Are proportionality and utilitarianism compatible? We empirically examine whether more proportionate punishment conflicts with utilitarian goals, using China's 2016 reform aimed at reducing harsh punishments for crimes of embezzlement and bribery as evidence. Employing a novel municipal-level panel dataset on embezzlement crimes, bribery crimes, and misappropriation of public funds crimes from 2001 to 2020 and using a generalized difference-in-differences model to assess pre- and post-reform variations, we find that the reform succeeded in reducing the severity of punishments, not only because of the relaxation of penal standards, but also because offenders no longer have strong opportunistic incentives to commit serious crimes under a more reasonable hierarchy of marginal deterrence. Although the reform led to an overall increase in the number of crimes due to reduced deterrence, most of the increase is concentrated in minor offenses. In conclusion, the reform did not cause more severe social harm. These findings suggest that proportionality is compatible with utilitarianism and should also be an important consideration within the utilitarian framework, providing key insights for countries considering reducing excessively severe punishments.

All publications