In a comment on my paper, “An Austrian approach to law and economics, with special reference to superstition” (Leeson 2012), Marciano contends that Posnerian foundations “may be problematic for an Austrian approach to law and economics”. In this reply I argue that the differences between Posner and Austrians that Marciano uses as the basis for his contention are normative. If, as Austrians claim, Austrian economics is purely positive, those differences are irrelevant to the appropriate foundations for an Austrian law and economics. They pose no problem for a Posnerian founding.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
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.
Marciano, A. (2012). How far an Austrian law and economics should be Posnerian? A comment on Peter Leeson. Review of Austrian Economics. doi:10.1007/s11138-012-0185-5.
Mises, L. (1949). Human action: A treatise on economics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Leeson, P.T. The irrelevance of normative considerations for founding an Austrian law and economics: Reply to Marciano. Rev Austrian Econ 25, 355–357 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-012-0186-4
- Austrian-Chicago synthesis
- Law and economics
- Economic analysis of law
- JEL Codes B53