(单词翻译:单击)
The second factor was a two-week programme called the Manne Economics Institute for Federal Judges, which ran from 1976 until 1998.
第二个因素是一个为期两周的项目，名为曼恩联邦法官经济研究所，该项目从1976年持续到1998年。
This was funded by businesses and conservative foundations, and involved an all-expenses-paid stay at a beachside hotel in Miami.
这个项目由企业和保守派基金会资助，在迈阿密的一家海滨酒店进行，期间费用全包。
It was no holiday, however, even if those who went nicknamed the conference “Pareto in the Palms”.
但这并不是去度假，虽然那些参加项目的人把项目戏称为“棕榈树上的帕累托”。
The curriculum was extremely demanding, taught by economists including Friedman and Paul Samuelson, both of whom had won Nobel prizes.
项目课程的要求极高，讲师包括弗里德曼和保罗·萨缪尔森等经济学家，他们都曾获得诺贝尔奖。
By the early 1990s nearly half the federal judiciary had spent a few weeks in Miami.
到20世纪90年代初，近一半的联邦司法人员都在迈阿密待过几个星期。
Those who attended included two future justices on the Supreme Court: Clarence Thomas (an arch conservative) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (his liberal counterpart).
其中包括两位未来的最高法院大法官：克拉伦斯·托马斯(极端保守派)和露丝·巴德·金斯伯格(自由派)。
Ginsburg would later surprise colleagues by voting with the conservative majority on antitrust cases, applying the so-called “consumer welfare standard” championed by the Manne programme.
金斯伯格后来做出让其同僚惊讶的举动，在反垄断案件上与保守派多数一起投票，采用曼恩计划倡导的“消费者福利标准”。
This states that a corporate merger is anticompetitive only if it raises the price or reduces the quality of goods or services.
这个标准认为，只有当公司合并提高了价格或降低了商品或服务的质量时，才是反竞争的。
Ginsburg wrote that the instruction she received in Miami “was far more intense than the Florida sun”.
金斯伯格在信中写道，她在迈阿密得到的教导“远比佛罗里达的烈日更为严酷”。
In a paper under review by the Quarterly Journal of Economics, Elliot Ash of ETH Zurich, Daniel Chen of Princeton University and Suresh Naidu of Columbia University treat the Manne programme as a natural experiment, comparing the decisions of every alumnus before and after their attendance at the conference.
在《经济学季刊》正在审阅的一篇论文中，苏黎世联邦理工学院的埃利奥特·阿什、普林斯顿大学的丹尼尔·陈和哥伦比亚大学的苏雷什·奈杜将曼恩项目视为一项自然实验，比较了参加项目的每个学员在项目前后所做出的决定。
They then use an artificial-intelligence approach called “word embedding” to assess the language in judges’ opinions in more than a million circuit- and district- court cases.
然后，他们使用一种名为“单词嵌入”的人工智能方法，评估了100多万个巡回法院和地方法院案件中法官意见书中的语言。
The researchers find that federal judges were more likely to use terms such as “efficiency” and “market”, and less likely to use those such as “discharged” and “revoke”, after time spent in Miami.
研究人员发现，在迈阿密待过一段时间之后，联邦法官更有可能使用“效率”和“市场”等术语，而不太可能使用“解除”和“撤销”等术语。
Manne alumni took what the authors characterised as the “conservative” stance on antitrust and other economic cases 30% more often in the years after attending.
曼纳项目的学员在参加项目后的几年里，在反垄断和其他经济案件上采取论文作者所说的“保守”立场的频率增加了30%。
They also imposed prison sentences 5% more frequently and of 25% greater length.
他们判处监禁的频率也增加了5%，刑期延长了25%。
The effect became stronger still after 2005, when a Supreme Court decision gave federal judges greater discretion over sentencing.
2005年，最高法院的一项裁决赋予联邦法官更大的量刑酌处权后，这种影响变得更加明显。
That researchers are turning the unforgiving lens of economic analysis on law and economics itself is a promising trend.
研究人员正在将经济分析的无情视角转向法律经济学本身，这是一个充满希望的趋势。
The dismal science has come a long way since the heyday of the Chicago school.
自芝加哥学派的鼎盛时期以来，法律经济学已经取得了长足的发展。
Thanks in large part to the empiricism of behavioural economics, it is less wedded to abstractions like the perfectly rational actor.
主要得益于行为经济学的经验主义，法律经济学不再那么执着于完全理性的行为者等抽象概念。
This has softened some of the Chicago school’s harsher edges.
这使得芝加哥学派的一些锐利锋芒有所收敛。
But it will nevertheless take time for judges to modify their approach.
但是，法官们仍然需要时间来改进他们的方法。
As Mr Ash notes: “The Chicago school economists may all be retired or dead, but Manne alumni continue to be active members of the judiciary.”
正如阿什所指出的：“芝加哥学派的经济学家可能都已退休或辞世，但曼恩项目的学员仍是司法机构的活跃成员。”
In courtrooms across America, Mr Posner’s influence will live on for decades to come.
在美国各地的法庭上，波斯纳的影响力将在未来数十年绵延不绝。
