Constitutional Political Economy

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 48–61 | Cite as

Gordon Tullock and the Virginia School of Law and Economics

  • Francesco ParisiEmail author
  • Barbara Luppi
  • Alice Guerra
Original Paper


In 1999 Gordon Tullock became Professor at the George Mason University Law School. Tullock’s arrival at George Mason brought the economics department and the law school close together. The work that resulted during those years consolidated the methodological foundations for a different way of thinking about the economic analysis of law—the “functional” approach to law and economics. The functional law and economics approach espoused by the Virginia School was not attacking any of the results of the Chicago School or the Yale School, but rather proposing a methodological shift. This paper presents some of the results developed by this school and illustrates Tullock’s controversial positions on trials and on the common law system, through anecdotes, Tullock’s own work and related scholarly contributions.


Rent-seeking Litigation Fee-shifting rule Virginia School of Law and Economics 

JEL Classification

C72 D72 K10 K41 


  1. Bungard, B. C. (2006). Fee! Fie! Foe! Fum!: I smell the efficiency of the English Rule: Finding the right approach to tort reform. Seton Hall Legislative Journal, 31, 1–64.Google Scholar
  2. Calabresi, G. (1991). The pointlessness of Pareto: Carrying coase further. Yale Law Journal, 100, 1211–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carbonara, E., Parisi, F., & Von Wangenheim, G. (2015). Rent-seeking and litigation: The hidden virtues of the limited fee shifting. Review of Law and Economics, 11(2), 113–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dari-Mattiacci, G., & Parisi, F. (2005). Rents, dissipation, and lost treasures: Rethinking Tullock’s paradox. Public Choice, 124, 411–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Farmer, A., & Pecorino, P. (1999). Legal expenditure as a rent-seeking game. Public Choice, 100(3–4), 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fon, V., & Parisi, F. (2003). Litigation and the evolution of legal remedies: A dynamic model. Public Choice, 116, 419–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fon, V., & Parisi, F. (2009). The economics of lawmaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fon, V., Parisi, F., & Depoorter, B. (2005). Litigation, judicial path-dependence, and legal change. European Journal of Law and Economics, 20, 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Higgins, R. S., Shughart, W. F, I. I., & Tollison, R. D. (1985). Efficient rents, free entry and efficient rent seeking. Public Choice, 46(3), 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Luppi, B., & Parisi, F. (2012). Litigation and legal evolution: Does procedure matter? Public Choice, 152, 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Luppi, B., & Parisi, F. (2015). Rent-seeking in the law. In R. Congleton & A. Hillman (Eds.), Companion to rent-seeking (pp. 293–307). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Parisi, F. (2002). Rent-seeking through litigation: Adversarial and inquisitorial systems compared. International Review of Law and Economics, 22, 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Posner, R. A. (1999). An economic approach to the law of evidence. Chicago Working Papers in Law and Economics No. 66 (2nd Series).Google Scholar
  14. Posner, R. A., & Parisi, F. (1999). Analisi Economica del Diritto Privato e Commerciale: Una Rassegna. Biblioteca delle Libertà, 34, 3–32.Google Scholar
  15. Priest, G. L. (1977). The common law process and the selection of efficient rules. Journal of Legal Studies, 6, 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Priest, G. L., & Klein, B. (1984). The selection of disputes for litigation. Journal of Legal Studies, 13, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rowley, C. (2012). The intellectual legacy of Gordon Tullock. Public Choice, 152(1), 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tullock, G. (1980a). Efficient rent-seeking. In J. M. Buchanan, G. Tollison, & G. Tullock (Eds.), Toward a theory of the rent-seeking society (pp. 97–112). College Station: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Tullock, G. (1980b). Trials on trial: The pure theory of legal procedure. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Tullock, G. (1988). Defending the Napoleonic code over the common law. Research in Law and Policy Studies, 2, 3–27Google Scholar
  21. Tullock, G. (1996). The case against the common law (1 Blackstone Commentaries Series). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Tullock, G. (2004). On the efficient organization of trials. In C. K. Rowley (Ed.), The selected works of Gordon Tullock (Vol. 1). Indianapolis: Liberty Funds.Google Scholar
  23. Tullock, G. (2005). Rent seeking and the law. In C. K. Rowley (Ed.), The selected works of Gordon Tullock (Vol. 5). Liberty Funds: Indianapolis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesco Parisi
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Barbara Luppi
    • 3
  • Alice Guerra
    • 4
  1. 1.University of Minnesota Law SchoolMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Modena and Reggio EmiliaModenaItaly
  4. 4.Department of Business and PoliticsCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations