Advertisement

Never the Twain Shall Meet?

A Critical Perspective on Cultural Limits Between Internal Continental Dogmatism and Consequential US-Style Law and Economics Theory
  • Kai Purnhagen
Chapter
Part of the Economic Analysis of Law in European Legal Scholarship book series (EALELS, volume 1)

Abstract

Why could law and economics theory (hereinafter L&E ) develop to become the most prominent theory in US legal scholarship, while still playing only a minor role in Europe? As this article is also meant as a gloss, as “a propagandist tracet”,1 I herein make use of my academic freedom to write freely also on controversial issues. If there is a grain of truth in what I am proposing here, it might help to de-mystify L&E theory and classify it to what it to my mind, really is: one very convincing and influential theory, but only one theory out of many that might explain the law. I will argue that it is not only the persuasiveness of the theory that helped to establish the continental divide in legal thought. But that cultural reasons also contributed to a significant extent. Some of them, such as World War II, are external social factors. Other factors, such as the influence of the Olin foundation, resulted from internal factors. As Grechenig and Gelter convincingly explain, at the beginning of the movement in the nineteenth and the early twentieth century the developments were comparable in Europe and the USA. The Nazi regime and World War II then marked a turning point, which resulted in reservations against L&E thinking. Europe responded with a renaissance of classical legal thought (hereinafter CLT ), while in the USA, the L&E theory developed further unhindered. This development, however, was not autonomous but influenced by man-made culture on both sides. Only recently, arguments from L&E are able to grasp hold in Europe. Interestingly, this development goes hand in hand with the upcoming of a new generation that has not been influenced by World War II. Furthermore, this generation benefited greatly from incentive mechanisms to grapple with American legal thinking through funding and the legal society likewise. The fall of the Berlin wall, I will argue, marks a second point in history, which brings L&E arguments to Europe and classical legal thought to the USA. I will close with a call for a specific EU-based idea of L&E , which starts from the outset as a method freed from the ideological struggles that accompanied the introduction of L&E in the USA. It shall live towards the aim of establishing both, a free and social market economy.

Keywords

Legal Scholarship Legal Thought Legal Realism Critical Legal Study Culture Culture 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgement

Thanks to Tatjana Tertsch and Maria Weigert for most valuable editing support.

Bibliography

  1. Ackermann, Thomas. 2007. Der Schutz des negativen Interesses. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  2. Afilalo, Ari, Dennis Patterson, and Kai Purnhagen. forthcoming 2013. Statecraft, the Market State and the Development of European Legal Culture. In Towards a European Legal Culture, eds. Geneviève Helleringer and Kai Purnhagen. Munich/Oxford/Baden-Baden: C.H. Beck/Hart/Nomos.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, Gregory. 2002. Comparing the Two Legal Realisms - American and Scandinavian. The American Journal of Comparative Law 50: 131 et seqq.Google Scholar
  4. Bengoetxea, Joxerramon. 1994. Legal System as a Regulative Ideal. In Praktische Vernunft und Rechtsanwendung, ARSP-Beiheft, eds. Hans-Joachim Koch and Ulfried Neumann. Vol. 53, pp. 65 et seqq. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. Blaug, Mark. 1980. The Methodology of Economics – or How Economists Explain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bogdandy, Armin v. 2010. Founding Principles. In Principles of European Constitutional Law, eds. Armin v. Bogdandy and Jürgen Bast. 2nd edn. 11 et seqq. Oxford/München/Baden-Baden: Hart/C.H. Beck/Nomos.Google Scholar
  7. Bouckaert, Boudewijn and Gerrit De Geest, eds. 2000. Encyclopedia of Law & Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  8. Caenegem, Roul v. 2002. European Law in the Past, Present and Future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Carney, William. 1999. The Legacy of “the Market for Corporate Control” and the Origins of the Theory of the Firm. Case Western Reserve University Law Review 50: 215 et seqq.Google Scholar
  10. Coase, Ronald. 1993. Law and Economics at Chicago. The Journal of Law and Economics 36: 239 et seqq.Google Scholar
  11. Craig, Paul. 2011. Integration, Democracy and Legitimacy. In The evolution of EU law, eds. Paul Craig and Gráinne de Búrca, 13 et seqq. Oxford.Google Scholar
  12. Dubois, James. 1995. Judgment and Sachverhalt: An Introduction to Adolf Reinach’s Phenomenological Realism. New York.Google Scholar
  13. Esser, Josef. 1964. Grundsatz und Norm in der richterlichen Fortbildung des Privatrechts. Tübingen.Google Scholar
  14. Franck, Jens-U and Kai Purnhagen. Homo Economicus, Behavioural Sciences, and Regulation: On the Concept of Man in Internal Market Regulation and its Normative Basis. In this volume, 327–363.Google Scholar
  15. Gestel, Rob v. and Hans-W Micklitz. 2011. Revitalising Doctrinal Research in Europe: What about Methodology? In European Legal Method – Paradoxes and Revitalisation, eds. Ulla Neergard, Ruth Nielsen and Lynn Roseberry, 25 et seqq. Kopenhagen: DJØF.Google Scholar
  16. Grechenig, Kristoffel and Martin Gelter. 2008. The Transatlantic Divergence in Legal Thought: American Law and Economics vs. German Doctrinalism. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 31: 295 et seqq.Google Scholar
  17. Greenberg, Udi. 2012. The Limits of Dictatorship and the Origin of Democracy: The Political Theory of Carl J. Friedrich from Weimar to the Cold War. In The Weimar Moment: Liberalism, Political Theology, and Law, eds. Leonard Kaplan and Rudy Koshar, 443 et seqq. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  18. Grey, Thomas. 1999. The New Formalism. In Stanford Law School, Public Law and Legal Series, Working Paper No. 4. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=200732
  19. Guastini, Riccardo. 2011. Rule-Scepticism Restated. In Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law, eds. Leslie Green and Brian Leiter. Vol. 1, 138 et seqq. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hart, Herbert. 1959. Scandinavian Realism. The Cambridge Law Journal 17: 233 et seqq.Google Scholar
  21. Herget, James E and Stephan Wallace. 1987. The German Free Law Movement as the Source of American Legal Realism. Virginia Law Review 73: 399 et seqq.Google Scholar
  22. Hesselink, Martijn. 2009. A European Legal Method? On European Private Law and Scientific Method. European Law Journal 15: 20 et seqq.Google Scholar
  23. Holmes, Oliver W. 1899. Law in Science and Science in Law. Harvard Law Review 12: 443 et seqq. (cited as: ‘Science’).Google Scholar
  24. Holmes, Oliver W. 1897. The Path of the Law. Harvard Law Review 10: 457 et seqq. (cited as: ‘Path’).Google Scholar
  25. Holmes, Oliver W. 1881. The Common Law. Boston (cited as: The Common Law).Google Scholar
  26. Jhering, Rudolf v. 2009. Scherz und Ernst in der Jurisprudenz. Edited by Max Leitner. Wien: Linde (cited as: Scherz und Ernst).Google Scholar
  27. Jhering, Rudolf v. 2007. Law as a Means to an End. Translated by Isaac Husik. Union, New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 4th printing from original 1913; cited as: Law as a Means).Google Scholar
  28. Kant, Immanuel. 1968. Kritik der Urtheilskraft. In Kants Werke. Akademie Textausgabe. Vol. V, 165–486. Berlin.Google Scholar
  29. Kantorowicz, Hermann. 1937. Savigny and the Historical School of Law. Law Quarterly Review 53: 335 et seqq.Google Scholar
  30. Kennedy, Duncan. 1998. Law-and-Economics from the Perspective of Critical Legal Studies. In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, ed. Paul Newman, 465 et seqq. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  31. Komesar, Neil. 1997. Imperfect Alternatives: Choosing Institutions in Law, Economics, and Public Policy. Chicago: University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kötz, Hein. 2011. Ein Leben als undogmatischer Jurist. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 19: 94 et seqq.Google Scholar
  33. Lanneau, Régis. forthcoming 2013. Dogmatics in Comparison to US-American Law and Economics – Dogmatism as Cultural Element of Law in Europe? In Towards a European Legal Culture, eds. Geneviève Helleringer and Kai Purnhagen. Munich/Oxford/Baden-Baden: C.H. Beck/Hart/Nomos.Google Scholar
  34. Leiter, Brian. forthcoming 2013. Legal Realisms, Old and New. Valparaiso Law Review 47.Google Scholar
  35. Loidolt, Sophie. 2010. Einführung in die Rechtsphänomenologie. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  36. Mackaay, Ejan. 2000. History of Law and Economics. In Encyclopedia of Law & Economics, eds. Boudewijn Bouckaert and Gerrit De Geest, 65 et seqq. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  37. Macneil, Ian. 2000. Other Sociological Approaches. In Encyclopedia of Law & Economics, eds. Boudewijn Bouckaert and Gerrit De Geest, 694 et seqq. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  38. Mathis, Klaus. 2011. Consequentialism in Law. In Efficiency, Sustainability, and Justice to Future Generations, ed. Klaus Mathis. New York: Springer (cited as: ‘Consequentialism’).Google Scholar
  39. Mathis, Klaus. 2012. Efficiency as a Normative Principle. In Interdisciplinary Research in Jurisprudence and Constitutionalism, ARSP-Beiheft, eds. Stephan Kirste et~al., Vol. 127, 113 et seqq. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag (cited as: ‘Normative Principle’).Google Scholar
  40. Mathis, Klaus. 2009. Efficiency Instead of Justice? New York: Springer (cited as: Efficiency).Google Scholar
  41. Mattei, Ugo and Roberto Pardolesi. 1991. Law and Economics in Civil Law Countries: a Comparative Approach. International Review of Law and Economics 11: 265 et seqq.Google Scholar
  42. Megay, Edward. 1970. Anti-Pluralist Liberalism: The German Neoliberals. Political Science Quarterly 85: 422 et seqq.Google Scholar
  43. Mestmäcker, Ernst-Joachim. 2007. A Legal Theory with Law. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  44. Micklitz, Hans-W. 2011. Introduction. In The Many Concepts of Social Justice in European Private Law, ed. Hans-W. Micklitz, 3 et seqq. Cheltenham (cited as: ‘Introduction’).Google Scholar
  45. Micklitz, Hans-W. 2010. The Visible Hand of European Regulatory Private Law – The Transformation of European Private Law from Autonomy to Functionalism in Competition and Regulation. Yearbook of European Law 2009: 3 et seqq. (cited as: ‘Visible Hand’).Google Scholar
  46. Miller, John. 2005. A Gift for Freedom. How the John M. Olin Foundation Changed America. Jackson: Encounter Books.Google Scholar
  47. Patterson, Dennis and Ari Afilalo. 2008. The New World Trading Order, 3 et seqq. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Pearson, Heath. 1997. Origins of Law and Economics – The Economists’ New Science of Law, 1830–1930. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Posner, Richard. 1987.The Decline of Law as an Autonomous Discipline: 1962–1987. Harvard Law Review 100: 761 et seqq.Google Scholar
  50. Priest, George. 1999. Henry Manne and the Market Measure of Intellectual Influence. Case Western Reserve University Law Review 50: 325 et seqq.Google Scholar
  51. Purnhagen, Kai. 2013. The Architecture of Post-National European Contract Law: A Question of Institutions? The Rabel Journal of Comparative and International Private Law 77: 592.Google Scholar
  52. Rubin, Paul. 1999. Henry G. Manne, Network Entrepreneur. Case Western Reserve University Law Review 50: 333 et seqq.Google Scholar
  53. Ruckelshaus, William. 1984. Risk in a Free Society. Risk Analysis 4: 157 et seqq.Google Scholar
  54. Russel, J. Stuart. 1986. The Critical Legal Studies Challenge to Contemporary Mainstream Legal Philosophy. Ottawa Law Review 18: 1 et seqq.Google Scholar
  55. Scalia, Antonin. 1997. A Matter of Interpretation. Federal Courts and the Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Schapp, Jan. 1968. Sein und Ort der Rechtsgebilde. Den Haag.Google Scholar
  57. Schauer, Frederik. 1993. Playing by the Rules: A Philosophical Examination of Rule-Based Decision-Making in Law and in Life. Oxford (cited as: Playing).Google Scholar
  58. Schauer, Frederik. 1988. Formalism. Yale Law Journal 97: 509 et seqq. (cited as: ‘Formalism’).Google Scholar
  59. Summers, Robert. 1997. How Law Is Formal and Why It Matters. Cornell Law Review 82: 1165 et seqq. (cited as: ‘Formal’).Google Scholar
  60. Summers, Robert. 2000. Essays in Legal Theory. Dordrecht: Springer (cited as: Essays).Google Scholar
  61. Sunstein, Cass. 2011. Humanizing Cost-Benefit Analysis. European Journal of Risk Regulation 2: 3 et seqq. (cited as: ‘Humanizing’).Google Scholar
  62. Sunstein, Cass. 1997. Free Markets and Social Justice. Oxford (cited as: Free Markets).Google Scholar
  63. Tamanaha, Brian. 2006. Law as a Means to an End, Threat to the Rule of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Teles, Steven. 2008. The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Weinrib, Ernest. 1995. The Idea of Private Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law and Governance GroupUniversity of Wageningen and Erasmus University of RotterdamWageningenthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations