Legislation, the Courts and the Demand for Compensation

  • Anthony Ogus
Part of the British Association for the Advancement of Science book series (BAAS)


The appropriateness of including the subject of law and economics and indeed the participation of myself, an academic lawyer, in a book devoted to the theme of ‘Economy and Democracy’ requires, perhaps, some initial explanation. Law and economics has been a flourishing area of interdisciplinary study in North America for the last two decades or so. It has taken some time to reach these shores and only now is it beginning to establish itself on a secure basis.1 The benefits to be derived by the two disciplines involved are mutual: lawyers, if they are to understand and evaluate the workings of the legal system, must recognise the economic functioning of legal rules and institutions; economists, for their part, in analysing the behavioural aspects of resource management, must appreciate the critical importance of those. rules and institutions. I trust that this chapter will serve as a useful illustration of both propositions.


Corrective Justice Legislative Process Liability Rule Judicial Process Minimise Transaction Cost 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes And References

  1. 1.
    C. G. Veljanovski, The New Law-and-Economic: A Research Review (Oxford: Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, 1982).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process (Yale UP, 1921).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (London: Duckworth, 1977).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Epstein, ‘Nuisance Law: Corrective Justice and its Utilitarian Constraints’, J. Legal Stud., 8 (1979) 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Fried, Right and Wrong (Harvard UP, 1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Technically known as locus standi, on which see P. Craig, Administrative Law (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1983) pp. 418–60.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Freund, Standards of American Legislation (University of Chicago Press, 1917).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cf. W. J. Samuels and N. Mercuro, ‘The Role of the Compensation Principle in Society’, Research in Law & Econ., 1 (1979), p. 157;Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    A. I. Ogus, ‘Do We Have a General Theory of Compensation?’, Current Legal Problems (1984) 29–45.Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    R. Pound, ‘Interests of Personality’, Harv, L. R. 28 (1914) pp. 343, 445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 10.
    O. W. Holmes, The Common Law (Boston: Little Brown, 1881), Lecture III.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    P. S. Atiyah, Accidents, Compensation and the Law, 3rd edn (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1980) ch. 22.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    On which see L. N. Brown and J. F. Garner, French Administrative Law, 3rd edn (London: Butterworth, 1983) pp. 124–5.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    R. M. Titmuss, Social Policy: An Introduction (London: Allen & Unwin, 1974) esp. chs 5–7.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    F. A. Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973) vol. 1.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    The literature is now immense. The leading studies are: G. J. Stigler, ‘The Theory of Economic Regulation’, Bell J., 2 (1971) 3;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. A. Posner, ‘Theories of Economic Regulation’, Bell J., 5 (1974) 335;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 17.
    S. Peltzman, ‘Towards a More General Theory of Regulation’, J. Law & Econ., 19 (1976) p. 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. V. Dicey, Law and Public Opinion in England, 2nd edn (London: Macmillan, 1962).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cf. W. J. Samuels and N. Mercuro, The Role and Resolution of the Compensation Principle in Society: Part Two — The Resolution’, Research in Law and Econ., 2 (1980), p. 103.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    See, generally, G. Alderman, Pressure Groups and Government in Great Britain (London: Longman, 1984) and for a particular example, National Farmers’ Union and compensation for slaughtered livestockGoogle Scholar
  22. 21.
    J. J. Richardson and A. G. Jordan, Governing Under Pressure (Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1979) p. 150.Google Scholar
  23. 22.
    B. Frost, The Tactics of Pressure (London: Galliard, 1975) p. 87.Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    W. M. Landes and R. A. Posner, ‘Salvors, Finders, Good Samaritans and Other Rescuers: An Economic Study of Law and Altruism’, J. Legal Stud., 7 (1978) pp. 83, 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 26.
    A. I. Ogus, ‘Social Costs in a Private Law Setting’, Internat. Rev. Law & Econ., 3 (1983) pp. 27, 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 27.
    R. A. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law, 2nd edn (Boston: Little Brown, 1977) pp. 409–10.Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    W. M. Landes and R. A. Posner, ‘The Positive Economic Theory of Tort Law’, Georgia L. R., 15 (1981) pp. 851, 863.Google Scholar
  28. 30.
    L. Kornhauser, ‘A Guide to the Perplexed Claims of Efficiency in the Law’, Hofstra L. R., 8 (1980) 591, pp. 627–34;Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    R. Markovits, ‘Legal Analysis and the Economic Analysis of Allocative Efficiency’, Hofstra L. R., 8 (1980) 811, pp. 849–56.Google Scholar
  30. 31.
    See the papers and bibliography collected in A. I. Ogus and C. G. Veljanovski, Readings in the Economics of Law and Regulation (Oxford UP, 1984) ch. 3.Google Scholar
  31. 33.
    See D. C. Mueller, Public Choice (Cambridge UP, 1979) pp. 49–57.Google Scholar
  32. 34.
    J. P. Kalt and M. A. Zupan, ‘Capture and Ideology in the Economic Theory of Politics’, Am. Econ. Rev., 74 (1984) p. 279.Google Scholar
  33. 35.
    J. A. Brittain, The Payroll Tax for Social Security (Washington: Brookings Institute, 1978) pp. 6–13.Google Scholar
  34. 36.
    A. Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper, 1957) pp. 98–103.Google Scholar
  35. 37.
    See, generally, E. S. Phelps (ed.) Altruism, Morality and Economic Theory (New York: Russell Sage, 1975).Google Scholar
  36. 38.
    J. Buchanan and G. Tullock, The Calculus of Consent (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1962).Google Scholar
  37. 39.
    G. Tullock, ‘A (Partial) Rehabilitation of the Public Interest Theory’, Law and Economic Center, University of Miami, Working Paper 82–2 (1982).Google Scholar
  38. 40.
    P. H. Rubin, ‘Common Law and Statute Law’, J. Legal Stud., 11 (1982) p. 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 41.
    R. A. Epstein, ‘The Static Conception of the Common Law’, J. Legal Stud, 9 (1980) 253, pp. 267–9.Google Scholar
  40. F. Michelman, ‘Political Markets and Community Self Determination: Competing Judicial Models of Local Government Legitimacy’, Indiana L. J. 53 (1977–78) pp. 145, 148–52.Google Scholar
  41. 44.
    The law of nuisance provides perhaps the best examples: see A. I. Ogus and G. M. Richardson, ‘Economics and the Environment: A Study of Private Nuisance’, Comb. L. J. 36 (1977) pp. 284, 308–311.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The British Association for the Advancement of Science 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony Ogus

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations