The Review of Austrian Economics

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 21–41

The rules of abstraction

Article

Abstract

Friedrich Hayek’s work on spontaneous order suggests that the emergence of a spontaneous order requires the existence of abstract rules of conduct. But how much abstraction is required? Abstraction exists on a gradient, from the highest specificity (pertaining to particular persons and narrowly defined circumstances) to the highest generality (pertaining to all persons in all circumstances). If rules create order by coordinating expectations, either end of the spectrum is undesirable; the most specific and the most abstract rules fail to provide decision makers with useful guidance. This article argues that rules that foster coordination must be characterized by an intermediate degree of abstraction. This conclusion will be explained and applied to law, language, and etiquette in order to draw out the similar character of rules across various contexts. The article concludes by discussing four properties that rules of intermediate abstraction must also possess to foster spontaneous order.

Keywords

Abstraction Spontaneous order Rules Law Language Etiquette 

JEL codes

B53 K0 Z1 

References

  1. Epstein, R. A. (1995). Simple rules for a complex world. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Fon, V., & Parisi, F. (2007). On the optimal specificity of legal rules. Journal of Institutional Economics, 3(2), 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hayek, F. A. (1960). The constitution of liberty. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Hayek, F. A. (1973). Law, legislation and liberty, vol. 1: Rules and order. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Heiner, R. A. (1983). The origin of predictable behavior. American Economic Review, 73, 560–595.Google Scholar
  6. Kennedy, D. (1976). Form and substance in private law adjudication. Harvard Law Review, 89, 1685–1778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Koppl, R. (2002). Custom and rules. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 61, 531–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Koppl, R., & Whitman, D. G. (2004). Rational-choice hermeneutics. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 55, 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mann, L. (1969). Queue culture: The waiting line as a social system. American Journal of Sociology, 75, 340–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Martin, J. (1993). A philosophy of etiquette. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 137, 350–356.Google Scholar
  11. O’Driscoll, G. P., & Rizzo, M. J. (1996, 1985). The economics of time and ignorance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Overton, S. (2002). Rules, standards, and Bush v. Gore: Form and the law of democracy. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 37, 65–102.Google Scholar
  13. Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  14. Post, P. (2008). Revolving doors. GoodHousekeeping.com. Retrieved Feb. 17, 2008 from http://magazines.ivillage.com/goodhousekeeping/etiquette/peggy/qas/0,,284571_431459,00.html.
  15. Rizzo, M. J. (1999). Which kind of legal order? Logical coherence and praxeological coherence. Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, 9(4), 497–510.Google Scholar
  16. Rose, C. M. (1988). Crystals and mud in property law. Stanford Law Review, 40, 577–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schauer, F. (1991). Playing by the rules: A philosophical examination of rule-based decision-making in law and in life. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  18. Schlag, P. (1985). Rules and standards. UCLA Law Review, 33, 379–430.Google Scholar
  19. Schutz, A. (1932). The phenomenology of the social world (translation by G. Walsh and F. Lehnert). Evanston, IL. Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Vanderbilt, A. (1968). Bad manners in America. The changing American people: Are we deteriorating or improving? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 378, 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsCalifornia State UniversityNorthridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations