European Journal of Law and Economics

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 259–272 | Cite as

Positive, Normative and Functional Schools in Law and Economics

Abstract

During its relatively short history, the law and economics movement has developed three distinct schools of thought. The first two schools of thought, often referred to as the Chicago or positive school and the Yale or normative school, developed almost concurrently. The functional school of law and economics, which developed subsequently, draws from public choice theory and the constitutional perspective of the Virginia school of economics to offer a third perspective which is neither fully positive nor fully normative. Various important methodological questions have accompanied the debate between these schools concerning the appropriate role of economic analysis in the institutional design of lawmaking and the limits of methods of evaluation of social preferences and aggregate welfare in policy analysis. These debates have contributed to the growing intellectual interest in the economic analysis of law.

Keywords

law and economics intellectual history methodology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Backhaus, J. (ed.) (2003). The Elgar Companion to Law and Economics, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Bentham, J. (1782). Of Laws in General.Google Scholar
  3. Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.Google Scholar
  4. Bentham, J. (1839). A Manual of Political Economy, New York: G.P. Putnam.Google Scholar
  5. Buchanan, J. (1974). “Good Economics-Bad Law.” Virginia Law Review. 60, 483–492.Google Scholar
  6. Buchanan, J.M. (1990). “The Domain of Constitutional Economics.” Constitutional Political Economy. 1(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  7. Buckley, F.H. (1999). The Fall and Rise of Freedom of Contract, Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Calabresi, G. (1980). “About Law and Economics: A Letter to Ronald Dworkin.” Hofstra Law Review. 8, 553–562.Google Scholar
  9. Calabresi, G. (1991). “The Pointlessness of Pareto: Carrying Coase Further.” Yale L.J. 100, 1211.Google Scholar
  10. Coase, R.H. (1960). “The Problem of Social Cost.” Journal of Law and Economics. 3, 1–44.Google Scholar
  11. Coase, R.H. (1978). “Economics and Contiguous Disciplines.” Journal of Legal Studies. 7, 201–211.Google Scholar
  12. Cooter, R. (1984). “Prices and Sanctions.” Columbia Law Review. 84, 1523–1560.Google Scholar
  13. Cooter, R.D. (1994). “Structural Adjudication and the New Law Merchant: A Model of Decentralized Law.” Int. Rev. of Law & Econ. 14, 215.Google Scholar
  14. Cooter, R.D. (2000). “Three Effects of Social Norms on Law: Expression, Deterrance, and Internalization.” Oregon Law Review. 79(1), 1.Google Scholar
  15. Edgeworth, F.Y. (1881). Mathematical Psychics, London: C. Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  16. Ehrlich, I. & Posner, R.A. “An Economic Analysis of Legal Rule Making.” Journal of Legal Studies. 3, 257–186.Google Scholar
  17. Fon, V. & Parisi, F. “The Limits of Reciprocity for Social Cooperation.” George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 03-08.Google Scholar
  18. Gauthier, D. (1986). Morals by Agreement, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  19. Harsanyi, J.C. (1955). “Cardinal Welfare Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility.” Journal of Political Economy. 63, 315.Google Scholar
  20. Hicks, J.R. (1939). “The Foundations of Welfare Economics.” Economic Journal. 49, 696–712.Google Scholar
  21. Kaldor, N. (1939). “Welfare Propositions of Economics and Inter-personal Comparisons of Utility.” Economic Journal. 49, 549–552.Google Scholar
  22. Kaplow, L. & Shavell, S. (1994). “Why the Legal System Is Less Efficient than the Income Tax in Redistributing Income.” Journal of Legal Studies. 23, 667–681.Google Scholar
  23. Kelly, P. & Bentham, J. (1998). New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, vol. 1.Google Scholar
  24. MacKaay, E. (2000). “History of Law and Economics.” Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, vol. 1, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Mueller, D. (1989). Public Choice II, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Nash, J., (1950). “The Bargaining Problem.” Econometrica. 18, 155.Google Scholar
  27. Parisi, F. (1998). “Customary Law.” The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, vol. 1.Google Scholar
  28. Parisi, F. & Ribstein, L. (1998). “Choice of Law.” The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, vol. 1.Google Scholar
  29. Posner, R.A. (1985). “Wealth Maximization Revisited.” Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy. 2, 85–105.Google Scholar
  30. Posner, R.A. (1988). “The Ethics of Wealth Maximization: Reply to Malloy.” Kansas Law Review. 36, 261.Google Scholar
  31. Posner, R.A. (1998). “Bentham’s Influence on the Law and Economics Movement.” Current Legal Problems. 51, 425.Google Scholar
  32. Posner, R.A. & Parisi, F. (1998). “Scuole e Tendenze nella Analisi Economica del Diritto.” Biblioteca della Liberta’. 147, 3–20.Google Scholar
  33. Priest, G.L. (1977). “The Common Law Process and the Selection of Efficient Rules.” Journal of Legal Studies. 6, 65–82.Google Scholar
  34. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Ribstein, L. & Kobayashi, B. (2001). “A Recipe for Cookies: State Regulation of Consumer Marketing Information.” George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 01-04.Google Scholar
  36. Ribstein, L. & O’Hara, E.A. (2000). “From Politics to Efficiency in Choice of Law.” University of Chicago Law Review. 67, 1151.Google Scholar
  37. Romano, R. (1999). “Corporate Law as the Paradigm for Contractual Choice of Law.” In F. Buckley (ed.), The Fall and Rise of Freedom of Contract, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rowley, C.K. (1981). “Social Sciences and the Law: The Relevance of Economic Theories.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 1, 391–405.Google Scholar
  39. Rowley, C.K. (1989). “The Common Law in Public Choice Perspective: A Theoretical and Institutional Critique.” Hamline Law Review. 12, 355–383.Google Scholar
  40. Rubin, P.H. (1977). “Why is the Common Law Efficient?” Journal of Legal Studies. 6, 51–63.Google Scholar
  41. Schotter, A. (1981). Economic Theory of Social Institutions, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Scitovsky, T. (1941). “A Note on Welfare Propositions in Economics.” Review of Economic Studies. 9(1), 77–88.Google Scholar
  43. Sen, A.K. (1979). “Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioural Foundations of Economic Theory.” In F. Hahn and M. Hollis (eds.), Philosophy and Economic Theory, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  44. Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.Google Scholar
  45. Smith, V., McCabe, K. & Rassenti, S. (1998). “Reciprocity, Trust and Payoff Privacy in Extensive Form Bargaining.” Games and Economic Behavior. 24, 10–24.Google Scholar
  46. Trebilcock, M.J. (1994). The Limits of Freedom of Contract, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Ullmann-Margalit, E. (1977). The Emergence of Norms, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  48. Vanberg, V.J. (1994). Rules and Choice in Economics, London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawGeorge Mason UniversityItaly
  2. 2.School of LawUniversity of MilanItaly

Personalised recommendations