Abstract
This chapter describes a novel and valuable approach to the relationship between economic analysis and the law called “reverse engineering legal reasoning”. Social engineering conceives of the law as a means to social ends and of the economist as the technician studying to what extent laws are fit for purpose. Building on this idea, reverse engineering legal reasoning is a way to identify economic concepts that describe—are coherent with or fit—the content of legal reasoning. To do so, alternative economic hypotheses about the content of legal reasoning are formulated. On these grounds, the degree of coherence between economic concepts and legal reasoning can be made explicit. Reverse engineering legal reasoning extends the focus of positive economic analysis from the effects of the law to its content. It is useful for economists to suggest ways to increase the effectiveness of the legal system; to contribute to its functioning; as source of evidence to test economic assumptions; and to solve disagreements among economists, especially in relation to value choices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Given its intended audience, this chapter focuses on the use of reverse engineering in relation to economics, but this approach can be used to test hypotheses coming from any discipline.
- 2.
Esposito (2019) argues that this type of fitness check is a necessary distinctive feature of what Calabresi (2016) calls “Law and Economics” vis-à-vis the “Economic Analysis of Law”. This is a point that has passed essentially unnoticed in the literature elaborating on Calabresi’s distinction. See, for example, Bix (2019), Hylton (2019), and Marciano and Ramello (2019).
- 3.
26 N.Y.2d 219, 309 N.Y.S.2d 312 (N.Y. 1970).
References
Bix, Brian H. 2019. Law and Economics and the Role of Explanation: A Comment of Guido Calabresi, The Future of Law and Economics. European Journal of Law and Economics 48: 113–123.
Broulík, Jan. 2020. What is Forensic Economics? In Economics in Legal Reasoning, ed. Péter Cserne and Fabrizio Esposito, 83–99. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Calabresi, Guido. 2016. The Future of Law and Economics: Essays in Reform and Recollection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Calabresi, Guido, and Douglas A. Melamed. 1972. Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral. Harvard Law Review 85: 1089–1128.
Canale, Damiano, and Giovanni Tuzet. 2020. What is Legal Reasoning About: A Jurisprudential Perspective. In Economics in Legal Reasoning, ed. Péter Cserne and Fabrizio Esposito, 9–24. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cooter, Robert D., and Thomas H. Ulen. 2012. Law & Economics. 6th ed. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Cserne, Péter. 2020. Economic Approaches to Legal Reasoning: An Overview. In Economics in Legal Reasoning, ed. Péter Cserne and Fabrizio Esposito, 25–41. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Davidson Sinclair. 2010. Economists as Social Engineers. Melbourne: Institute of Public Affairs.
Devlin, Alan. 2015. Fundamental Principles of Law and Economics. London: Routledge.
Epstein, Richard A. 1975. Unconscionability: A Critical Reappraisal. The Journal of Law and Economics 18: 293–315.
Esposito, Fabrizio. 2017. A Dismal Reality: Behavioural Analysis and Consumer Policy. Journal of Consumer Policy 40: 193–216.
———. 2018a. Economic Concepts in the Analysis of Proportionality Reasoning between Similarity and Identity. Analisi e Diritto 1/2018: 185–210.
———. 2018b. Law and Economics United in Diversity: Minimalism, Fairness, and Consumer Welfare in EU Antitrust and Consumer Law. PhD diss., European University Institute.
———. 2019. On the Fitness between Law and Economics—Or Sunstein between Posner and Calabresi. Global Jurist 19. https://doi.org/10.1515/gj-2018-0054.
Esposito, Fabrizio, and Giovanni Tuzet. 2019. Economic Consequences as Legal Values: An Inferentialist Approach. In Law and Economics as Interdisciplinary Exchange, ed. Péter Cserne and Magdalena Malecka, 123–157. Abingdon: Routledge.
———. 2020. Economic Consequences for Lawyers: Beyond the Jurisprudential Preface. Journal of Argumentation (forthcoming).
Farber, Daniel A. 2000. Economic Efficiency and the Ex Ante Perspective. In The Jurisprudential Foundations of Corporate and Commercial Law, ed. Jody M. Kraus and Steven D. Walt, 121–137. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Figueroa Zimmermann, Felipe. 2020. Fostering the autonomy of legal reasoning through Legal Realism. In Economics in Legal Reasoning, ed. Péter Cserne and Fabrizio Esposito, 121–137. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Friedman, Milton. 1953. The Methodology of Positive Economics. In Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Giocoli, Nicola. 2020. Why US Judges Reject Economic Experts? In Economics in Legal Reasoning, ed. Péter Cserne and Fabrizio Esposito, 101–117. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hansmann, Henry, and Reinier H. Kraakman. 2001. The End of History For Corporate Law. Georgetown Law Journal 89: 439–468.
Hylton, Keith N. 2019. Law and Economics Versus Economic Analysis of Law. European Journal of Law and Economics 48: 77–88.
Kaplow, Louis, and Steven Shavell. 1994. Why the Legal System is Less Efficient than the Income Tax in Redistributing Income. Journal of Legal Studies 23 (2): 667–681.
———. 2002. Fairness versus Welfare. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Katz, Avery W. 2015. Economic Foundations of Contract Law. In Philosophical Foundations of Contract Law, ed. Gregory Klass, George Letsas, and Price Saprai, 171–192. New York: Oxford University Press.
Komesar, Neil. 1994. Imperfect Alternatives. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Korobkin, Russel. 2003. Bounded Rationality, Standard Form Contracts, and Unconscionability. The University of Chicago Law Review 70: 1203–1295.
Marciano, Alain, and Giovanni Battista Ramello. 2019. Law, Economics and Calabresi on the Future of Law and Economics. European Journal of Law and Economics 48: 65–76.
Posner, Richard A. 1979. Some Uses and Abuses of Economics in Law. The University of Chicago Law Review 46: 281–306.
———. 2015. Norms and Values in the Economic Approach to Law. In Law and Economics: Philosophical Issues and Fundamental Questions, ed. Aristides Hatzis and Nicholas Mercuro, 1–15. Abingdon: Routledge.
Raz, Joseph H. 1979. The Authority of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schwartz, Alan. 2001. Two Culture Problems in Law and Economics. University of Illinois Law Review 5/2011: 1531–1550.
Scott, Robert E., and Alan Schwartz. 2003. Contract Theory and the Limits of Contract Law. The Yale Law Journal 113: 541–619.
Sunstein, Cass R. 2018. Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Esposito, F. (2020). Reverse Engineering Legal Reasoning. In: Cserne, P., Esposito, F. (eds) Economics in Legal Reasoning. Palgrave Studies in Institutions, Economics and Law. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40168-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40168-9_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-40167-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-40168-9
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)