Skip to main content
Log in

What's Yours is Mine: Rent-Seeking and the Common Law

  • Published:
Public Choice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper develops a rent-seeking theory of the common law.The general finding is that the law's form depends on thecomparative advantage each group has in production versusappropriation generally, and appropriation via litigation inparticular. The model generates new interpretations ofdevelopments in United States common law, and is used both tosupplement and to criticize two dominant theories of such law,the efficiency theory associated with the law and economicsmovement and that generated by critical legal studiesscholars.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bailey, M.J. and Rubin, P.H. (1994). A positive theory of legal change. International Review of Law and Economics 14: 467–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G.S. (1983). A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. Quarterly Journal of Economics 98: 371–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dana, J. and Spier, K. (1993). Expertise and contingent fees: The role of asymmetric information in attorney compensation. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 9: 349–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danzon, P.M. (1983). Contingent fees for personal injury litigation. Bell Journal of Economics 14: 213–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, R.A. (1990). The independence of judges: The uses and limitations of public choice theory. B.Y.U. Law Review 3: 827–855.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, A. and Pecorino, P. (1999). Legal expenditure as a rent-seeking game. Public Choice 100: 271–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J. (1978). An economic theory of the evolution of the common law. Journal of Legal Studies 7: 393–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz, M.J. (1977). The transformation of American law, 1780-1860. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howells, G. (1993). Comparative product liability. Brookfield, VT: Dartmouth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, A. (1993). Explorations in law and society: Towards a constitutive theory of law. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung, C., Krutilla, K., Viscusi, W.K. and Boyd, R. (1995). The Coase theorem in a rent-seeking society. International Review of Law and Economics 15: 259–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, M. (1988). On democracy bashing: A skeptical look at the theoretical and 'empirical' practice of the public choice movement. Virginia Law Review 74: 199–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuznets, S. (1968). Toward a theory of economic growth, with reflections on the economic growth of modern nations. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landes, W.M. and Posner, R.A. (1985). A positive economic analysis of products liability. Journal of Legal Studies 14: 535–567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landes, W.M. and Posner, R.A. (1975). The independent judiciary in an interest-group perspective. Journal of Law and Economics 18: 875–901.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. (1995). Endogenous sharing rules in collective-group rent-seeking. Public Choice 85: 31–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. (1987). Some agency problems in settlement. Journal of Legal Studies 16: 189–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noh, S.-J. (1999). A general equilibrium model of two group conflict with endogenous intragroup sharing rules. Public Choice 98: 251–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ontario Law Reform Commission. (1979). Report on products liability. Toronto: Ministry of the Attorney General.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, R.A. (1998). Economic analysis of law. 5th edition. New York: Aspen Law and Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest, G.L. (1985). The invention of enterprise liability: A critical history of the intellectual foundations of modern tort law. Journal of Legal Studies 14: 461–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest, G.L. (1977). The common-law process and the selection of efficient rules. Journal of Legal Studies 6: 65–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, P.H. (1977). Why is the common law efficient? Journal of Legal Studies 6: 51–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, P.H. and Bailey, M.J. (1994). The role of lawyers in changing the law. Journal of Legal Studies 23: 807–831.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, P.H., Curran, C. and Curran, J. (2001). Litigation versus lobbying: Forum shopping by rent-seekers. Public Choice 107: 295–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solow, R.M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 70: 65–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tullock, G. (1980). Efficient rent seeking. In J.M. Buchanan, R.D. Tollison and G. Tullock (Eds.), Toward a theory of the rent-seeking society, 97–112. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushnet, M. (1991). Critical legal studies: A political history. Yale Law Journal 100: 1515–1544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wangenheim, G. (1993). The evolution of judge-made law. International Review of Law and Economics 13: 381–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, J.G. and Lindert, P.H. (1980). American inequality: A macroeconomic history. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Osborne, E. What's Yours is Mine: Rent-Seeking and the Common Law. Public Choice 111, 399–415 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014912314741

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014912314741

Keywords

Navigation