Abstract
The purpose of this note is to stress that Posner’s conception of law and of the role of judges in a legal system might be problematic for an Austrian approach to law and economics, despite the praxeological dimension of his analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Harnay, S., & Marciano, A. (2009). Posner, economics and the law: From ‘law and economics’ to an economic analysis of law. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 31, 215–232.
Leeson, P. T. (2012). An Austrian approach to law and economics, with special reference to superstition, Review of Austrian Economics. doi:10.1007/s11138-012-0179-3.
Marciano, A. (2007). Exchange and value in law and economics, Buchanan and Posner compared. Review of Austrian Economics, 20(2/3), 187–200.
O'Driscoll, G. P., Jr. (1980). Justice, efficiency, and the economic analysis of law: A comment on Fried. The Journal of Legal Studies, 9(2), 355–366. Change in the Common Law: Legal and Economic Perspectives.
Posner, R. A. (1990). The problems of jurisprudence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Posner, R. A. (2007). Economic analysis of law (7th ed.). New-York City: Aspen Publishers.
Rizzo, M. (1999). Which kind of legal order? Logical coherence and praxeological coherence. Journal des Économistes et des Études Humaines, 9(4), 497–510.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marciano, A. How far an Austrian law and economics should be Posnerian?. Rev Austrian Econ 25, 351–354 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-012-0185-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-012-0185-5