Huabing Li

I am a PhD candidate in the European Doctorate in Law and Economics program (Hamburg ⋅ Bologna ⋅ Rotterdam), supervised by Roee Sarel (Hamburg), Franziska Weber (Rotterdam), and Shu Li (Rotterdam). My dissertation explores how will digitalization reshape the future of courts through empirical, experimental, and modeling approaches, and I also work broadly across law & economics and actively seek academic collaborations.

GitHub WeChat CV LinkedIn ORCID Lab
Education

  • European Doctorate in Law and Economics

    Hamburg (DE), Bologna (IT), and Rotterdam (NL)

    Joint PhD in Law and Economics 2024 – Now

  • European Master in Law and Economics

    Hamburg (DE), Ghent (BE), and Barcelona (ES)

    Joint LLM in Law and Economics 2023 – 2024

  • Renmin University of China

    Beijing (CN)

    Bachelor in Economics (major); Law, CS, and Finance (minors) 2019 – 2023

Honors & Awards
  • AsLEA Best Paper Awards for Junior Scholars 2025
  • DAAD Graduate School Full Scholarship 2024
  • Erasmus Mundus Full Scholarship 2023
  • China National Encouragement Scholarship 2022
  • Finalist of American Mathematical Contest in Modelling 2022
  • First Prize of Renmin University of China “Innovation Cup” Competition 2022
  • Second Prize of Beijing Mathematical Modeling Competition 2022
  • Outstanding Volunteer of Renmin University of China Legal Aid Center 2020, 2021
  • Honorary Individual in the Fight Against the Covid‑19 2020
  • Scholarship for Social Contribution and Volunteerism 2020
News
2025
20nd Asian Law and Economics Association Annual Conference at City University of Hongkong (Best Paper Award!)
Aug 12
22nd German Law and Economics Association Annual Meeting at University of Bonn
Jul 03
“Fresh Perspectives on Judging” Symposium at University College London
Jun 20
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

2025 Annual Meeting of GLEA, 2025 Annual Conference of AsLEA, 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

2025 Annual Meeting of GLEA, 2025 Annual Conference of AsLEA, 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