Encyclopedia of Law and Economics

2019 Edition
| Editors: Alain Marciano, Giovanni Battista Ramello

Legal Disputes

  • Richard E. WagnerEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7753-2_288


In bringing economic analysis to bear on whether a dispute is settled without trial, the presumed institutional setting is typically one of private property where the parties are residual claimants to their legal expenses. Many disputes, however, are between private and public parties. In these disputes there is a conflict between substantive rationalities because public parties are not residual claimants. Just as the substantive content of action can vary depending on whether the actor operates within a context of private or common property, so can the substance of dispute settlement vary. While a public actor cannot pocket legal expenses that are saved through settlement, the expenses of trial can serve as an investment in pursuing future political ambitions.

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


  1. Backhaus JG (1978) Pareto and public choice. Public Choice 33:5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bourdieu P (1990) The logic of practice. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourdieu P (1998) Practical reason: on the theory of action. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Buchanan JM (1969) Cost and choice. Markham, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. Epstein RA (1985) Takings: private property and the power of eminent domain. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Eucken W (1952) Grundsätze der Wirtschaftspolitik. J. C. B. Mohr, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  7. Ikeda S (1997) Dynamics of the mixed economy. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jacobs J (1992) Systems of survival. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Littlechild SC (1978) The fallacy of the mixed economy. Institute of Economic Affairs, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. MacIntyre A (1988) Whose justice? Which rationality? University of Notre Dame Press, Notre DameGoogle Scholar
  11. McLure M (2007) The Paretian school and Italian fiscal sociology. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Miceli TJ (2005) Dispute resolution. In: Backhaus JG (ed) The Elgar companion to law and economics, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 293–403Google Scholar
  13. Neyman J (1950) First course in probability and statistics. Henry Holt, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Pareto V (1916 (1935)) The mind and society: a treatise on general sociology. Harcourt Brace, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Raudla R (2010) Governing the budgetary commons: what can we learn from Elinor Ostrom? Eur J Law Econ 30:201–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wagner RE (2007) Fiscal sociology and the theory of public finance. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA