The Review of Austrian Economics

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 351–354 | Cite as

How far an Austrian law and economics should be Posnerian?

A comment on Peter Leeson
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this note is to stress that Posner’s conception of law and of the role of judges in a legal system might be problematic for an Austrian approach to law and economics, despite the praxeological dimension of his analysis.

Keyword

Posner Austrian economics Law and economics Economic analysis of law Constructivism Judges Common law 

JEL Codes

B53 K00 K49 

References

  1. Harnay, S., & Marciano, A. (2009). Posner, economics and the law: From ‘law and economics’ to an economic analysis of law. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 31, 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Leeson, P. T. (2012). An Austrian approach to law and economics, with special reference to superstition, Review of Austrian Economics. doi:10.1007/s11138-012-0179-3.
  3. Marciano, A. (2007). Exchange and value in law and economics, Buchanan and Posner compared. Review of Austrian Economics, 20(2/3), 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. O'Driscoll, G. P., Jr. (1980). Justice, efficiency, and the economic analysis of law: A comment on Fried. The Journal of Legal Studies, 9(2), 355–366. Change in the Common Law: Legal and Economic Perspectives.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Posner, R. A. (1990). The problems of jurisprudence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Posner, R. A. (2007). Economic analysis of law (7th ed.). New-York City: Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Rizzo, M. (1999). Which kind of legal order? Logical coherence and praxeological coherence. Journal des Économistes et des Études Humaines, 9(4), 497–510.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Montpellier 1MontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations