European Journal of Law and Economics

, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp 1–14 | Cite as

Common law efficiency when joinder and class actions fail as aggregation devices

  • Frank FaganEmail author
  • Urmee Khan


We develop a litigant-based model of rule selection where parties choose to litigate rules that are efficient between two parties, but inefficient as between a potential class or potentially joined litigants and a counter-party. Collective action problems lead to incomplete party formation, which generates continuous litigation of seemingly efficient rules. By accounting for externalities borne by non-parties, we show that rules which are allocatively efficient across both parties and non-parties are evolutionary stable for any given judicial ideology or judicial preference for prestige, thus preserving the explanatory power of the Efficiency of Common Law Hypothesis.


Efficient common law hypothesis Joinder Class actions Baconian judges 

JEL classifications

K13 K15 K41 


  1. Bacon, F. (1882 [1612]). Essay on judicature. In R. Watley (Ed.), Bacon’s essays with annotations (pp. 582–587). London: Longmans, Green, and Co.Google Scholar
  2. Bishop, W. (1982). Economic loss in tort. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cardozo, B. N. (1921). The nature of the judicial process. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cassone, A., & Ramello, G. B. (2011). The simple economics of class action: Private provision of club and public goods. European Journal of Law and Economics, 32, 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cenini, M., Luppi, B., & Parisi, F. (2011). Incentive effects of class actions and punitive damages under alternative procedural regimes. European Journal of Law and Economics, 32, 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Epstein, L., Landes, W. M., & Posner, R. A. (2013). The behavior of federal judges. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fagan, F. (2017). Renovating the efficiency of common law hypothesis. In F. Fagan & S. Levmore (Eds.), The timing of lawmaking. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kobayashi, B. (2017). Economics of Litigation. In Parisi F (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics: Volume 3: Public Law and Legal Institutions.
  9. Melcarne, A., Epstein, L., Landes, W. M., & Posner, R. A. (2017). The behavior of federal judges: A theoretical and empirical study of rational choice. European Journal of Law and Economics, 43, 559–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Niblett, A., Posner, R. A., & Shleifer, A. (2010). The evolution of a legal rule. Journal of Legal Studies, 39, 325–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Posner, R. A. (1998). Economic analysis of law (5th ed.)., Aspen law & business New York: Aspen publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Posner, R. A. (2006). Common-law economic torts: An economic and legal analysis. Arizona Law Review, 48, 735–447.Google Scholar
  13. Priest, G. L. (1977). The common law process and the selection of efficient rules. Journal of Legal Studies, 6, 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Richards, D., Epstein, L., Landes, W. M., & Posner, R. A. (2017). The behavior of federal judges: A theoretical and empirical study of rational choice. European Journal of Law and Economics, 43, 555–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rubin, P. H. (1977). Why is the common law efficient? Journal of Legal Studies, 6, 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rubin, P. H. (Ed.). (2007). The evolution of efficient common law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  17. U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Population and housing unit counts, 2010 census. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  18. Zywicki, T., & Stringham, E. (2010). Common law and economic efficiency (2nd ed.). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Zywicki, T. J. (2003). The rise and fall of efficiency in the common law: A supply-side analysis. Northwestern Law Review, 97, 1551–1633.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.EDHEC Business SchoolLilleFrance
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations