Complexity and the Cathedral: making law and economics more Calabresian
- 110 Downloads
This article argues that Calabresi and Melamed’s “Cathedral” framework of property rules, liability rules, and inalienability rules needs to be extended using the tools of complex systems theory in order to capture important institutional features of the law. As an applied field, law and economics looks to law in choosing the appropriate analytical tools from economics—something that Calabresi has identified (in strong form) as law and economics as opposed to economic analysis of law. Recognizing law as a complex system requires a rethinking of some Realist-inspired assumptions that underpin economically inspired analysis of law. These assumptions include a preference for narrow, concrete concepts and a skepticism about traditional doctrines and baselines—and ultimately Legal Realism’s extreme nominalism and the strong bundle of rights picture of property. The article shows how the Calabresi and Melamed (C&M) framework exhibits gaps that can be addressed by systems theory; these include narrow entitlements to engage in specific activities, liability rules that allow an affected party to buy out an activity (Rule 4), opportunistic behavior by parties that destabilizes liability rules, and the role of equity as an institutional response. Extending the C&M framework to treat it as a system helps prevent the C&M framework from flattening the law out. If we supplement the C&M framework to take account of law as a system, we can bring it closer to Calabresian law and economics.
KeywordsProperty rules Liability rules Economic analysis of law Law and economics Property Complex systems Equity
KeywordsJEL Classification A12 K11 K13
For very helpful comments, I would like to thank participants at the conference on the Future of Law and Economics, and especially Doug Melamed for his insightful commentary, as well as John Goldberg, Mark Ramseyer, and audiences at the American Law and Economics Annual Meeting at the Boston University School of Law, and the Private Law Consortium Conference at Harvard Law School. Special thanks to Guido for his inspiration and friendship. For all errors I am not only the cheapest cost avoider, but fully to blame.
- Alexander, G. S. (2016). The sporting life: Democratic culture and the historical origins of the Scottish right to roam. University of Illinois Law Review, 2016, 321–370.Google Scholar
- Alston, L., & Mueller, B. (2014). Towards a more evolutionary theory of property rights. Iowa Law Review, 100, 2255–2273.Google Scholar
- Anderson, J. M. (2007). The missing theory of variable selection in the economic analysis of tort law. Utah Law Review, 2007, 255–285.Google Scholar
- Arthur, W. B. (2015). Complexity and the economy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Bar-Gill, O., & Persico, N. (2016). Exchange efficiency with weak ownership rights. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 8(4), 230–267.Google Scholar
- Bayern, S. J. (2010). The limits of formal economics in tort law: The puzzle of negligence. Brooklyn Law Review, 75, 707–752.Google Scholar
- Bray, S. L. (2016). The system of equitable remedies. UCLA Law Review, 63, 530–593.Google Scholar
- Calabresi, G. (1970). The cost of accidents: A legal and economic analysis. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Calabresi, G. (2014). A broader view of the cathedral: The significance of the liability rule, correcting a misapprehension. Law and Contemporary Problems, 77(2), 1–13.Google Scholar
- Calabresi, G., & Bobbitt, P. (1978). Tragic choices. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
- Coleman, J. L. (2001). The practice of principle: In defence of a pragmatist approach to legal theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Crawford, M. J. R. (2017). An expressive theory of possession. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5988-4582.
- Demsetz, H. (1967). Toward a theory of property rights. American Economic Review, 57, 347–359.Google Scholar
- Ellickson, R. C. (2011). The inevitable trend toward universally recognizable signals of property claims: An essay for Carol Rose. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 19, 1015–1032.Google Scholar
- Fennell, L. A. (2012). Lumpy property. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 160, 1955–1993.Google Scholar
- Gergen, M. P., Golden, J. M., & Smith, H. E. (2012). The Supreme Court’s accidental revolution? The test for permanent injunctions. Columbia Law Review, 112, 203–249.Google Scholar
- Gold, A. S. & Smith, H. E. (2016). Sizing up private law. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2821354. August 9, 2016.
- Goldberg, J. C. P. & Zipursky, B. C. (2019, forthcoming). Recognizing wrongs. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Grey, T. C. (1980). The disintegration of property. In J. R. Pennock & J. W. Chapman (Eds.), NOMOS XXII: Property (pp. 69–85). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
- Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for the laws of self-organization and complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Klick, J., & Parchomovsky, G. (2017). The value of the right to exclude: An empirical assessment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 165, 917–966.Google Scholar
- Krier, J. E. (2009). Evolutionary theory and the origin of property rights. Cornell Law Review, 95, 139–159.Google Scholar
- Lee, W. F., & Melamed, A. D. (2016). Breaking the vicious cycle of patent damages. Cornell Law Review, 101, 385–466.Google Scholar
- Merrill, T. W., & Smith, H. E. (2007). The morality of property. William and Mary Law Review, 48, 1849–1895.Google Scholar
- Michelman, F. I. (2005). There have to be four. Maryland Law Review, 64, 136–158.Google Scholar
- Miller, J. H., & Page, S. E. (2007). Complex adaptive systems: An introduction to computational models of social life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Mitchell, M. (2011). Complexity: A guided tour. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Penner, J. E. (1997). The idea of property in law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Posner, R. A. (2014 ). Economic analysis of law (9th ed.). New York: Aspen.Google Scholar
- Schelling, T. C. (1978). Micromotives and macrobehavior. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
- Shafee, T. (2013). Evolvability of a viral protease: Experimental evolution of catalysis, robustness and specificity. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge. https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/245207.
- Sichelman, T. & Smith, H. E. (2017). Modeling legal modularity.Google Scholar
- Simon, H. A. (1981 ). The sciences of the artificial (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Smith, H. E. (2003). The language of property: Form, context, and audience. Stanford Law Review, 55, 1105–1191.Google Scholar
- Smith, H. E. (2004b). Property and property rules. New York University Law Review, 79, 1719–1798.Google Scholar
- Smith, H. E. (2005). Self-help and the nature of property. Journal of Law, Economics & Policy, 1, 69–107.Google Scholar
- Smith, H. E. (2011a). Modularity and morality in the law of torts, Journal of Tort Law, 4(2), 5. http://www.bepress.com/jtl/vol4/iss2/art5.
- Smith, H. E. (2011b). Property is not just a bundle of rights. Econ Journal Watch, 8, 279–291.Google Scholar
- Smith, H. E. (2012). Property as the law of things. Harvard Law Review, 125, 1691–1726.Google Scholar
- Smith, H. E. (2015). Equity as second-order law: The problem of opportunism. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2617413. January 15, 2015.
- Smith, H. E. (2017). Fusing the equitable function in private law. In K. Barker, K. Fairweather, & R. Grantham (Eds.), Private law in the 21st century (pp. 173–195). Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
- Weaver, W. (1948). Science and complexity. American Scientist, 36, 536–544.Google Scholar
- Zipursky, B. C. (2007). Sleight of hand. William & Mary Law Review, 48, 1999–2041.Google Scholar