Talk:Law and economics

This is just a beginning on this very large and complex topic. Help appreciated. User:Lsolum

It appears to me to be a neoclassical economics aficionado's name for political economy, as it was known from Adam Smith to Ralph Nader. That field is properly about how both law and economy derive from a polity that puts specific values on different factors of production, assigns property rights and interprets them. Would advise reading some of these other wiki's views: two old articles from here (http://consumerium.org/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=political_economy), Disinfopedia (classical) view (http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=political_economy), and the entire long page history of political economy here, marked by various edit wars between notably User:Enchanter and User:Slrubenstein. Hope this helps. EofT

If you agree with my assertion, then, recommend that this material be merged with political economy with law and economics as an alternative name, a redirect, and perhaps a subheading. Then all views on this from all theories of economics are in one place. EofT

___________________________________________

No, law and economics is a separate discipline, and is probably the most influential new theory of law in the 20th century. Any law student, lawyer, judge, political scientist, law professor, or undergraduate pre-law student would expect a distinct entry on this topic.

By all means give it to them. But, it is not a new theory, it is only a new title. Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill explicitly studied the "economy of polities" as they described political economy, which is a macro-version of this question, and the neoclassical libertarians have done a great deal to apply economic math to legal and political questions. The older political economy articles dealt with this although not in the depth that you have, naming the specific economic models which have been applied to the legal questions. EofT

There are dozens of textbooks, hundreds of courses, and a major scholarly association devoted to law and economics. User:Lsolum

Hm, and, and, how much of this is American, and wholly motivated by trying to avoid the Marxist economics implications of the term political economy as it is used at, say, the London School of Economics? American legal and economic theory is second rate, as you well know if you work in this field, and typically quite uninformed by the Marxist dialogue, the entire queer and postmodern dialogue on law and control of language and terms - never mind failing to deal at all with colonialism or other "imposed law". I suspect this "cleaned up" concept of "how to justify law using economics" has about the same ontological status as those textbooks printed in Nebraska that teach Afghans math with hand grenades thrown at commie infidels, or the American Heritage Dictionary or some such trash. The topic should be dealt with, but, this is not a textbook on American legal theory. If you wish to write that, go to our textbooks project (http://textbooks.wikipedia.org). Leave it here, and, it will soon be annotated if not festooned with commentary on the motives, objectives, funders and intent of this neat attempt to sidestep the whole dialogue on this topic as developed in Europe. EofT

This comment leaves me at a loss as to how to continue. Law and economics is something that would be included in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It would be entirely proper to include discussion of political economy and various critiques of the law and economics movement, but this comment suggests that the wikipedia community will not support an entry that provides the information that an interested reader would need to understand what the law and economics movement is about, what it says, and how it has been criticized. - User:Lsolum

My mistake. I'll be clearer - YES we will support such a comprehensive entry - not a simple extension of the stub to describe "what its advocates think it is". BUT it would be hard to keep that comprehensive article from having vast overlap with the political economy scope, AND it would seem to give more credence to neoclassical economics, which gives great weight the use of economic math to justify law that disposes of bodies, unless the critique is harsh indeed. So a separate article like this one should probably make clear it is a micro-economic view of political economy, and that derived from neoclassicl economics. Political economy itself would deal with its economic implications, and law with its legal ones (maybe a paragraph). EofT

This isn't the place to outline the differences, but if you take a look at any standard textbook on law and economics you will see that there is very little overlap in practice with political economy. Although in theory, these fields might overlap, in practice law and economics focuses on a narrower set of questions that are usually too specialized for political economy. User:Lsolum

If they're "too specialized" that suggests this is micro-economic and political economy is macro-economic. Does that seem right to you? Also I am suspicious of "theory versus practice" arguments. Do those making the political economy arguments believe that? Admittedly many think micro- stuff always applies in the macro (the neoclassical disease), and that macro-stuff always applies in the micro (the Marxist's syndrome). There's a balance. I'll wait to see the results. EofT

If it can't stand on its own without bringing in *all* the debates in political economy, Wikipedia protocol in this situation is to have ONE article with TWO names, via the "redirect" facility which lets you link to one name, and have the Wikipedia bring up another. That alternate name is typically boldfaced to indicate that it is a fully legitimate alternate term. See instant runoff voting which I think has some alternative names, equally legitimate, and se of nation-specific origins. EofT

On a personal note, I am very familiar with political economy, with Marxist theories of law, and a variety of other approaches that are inconsistent with law and economics. And I'm not myself a proponent of this school of thought. - User:Lsolum

Good, because generally if one is, one writes more biased articles. Many of these issues will become clear as the stub expands I am sure. The above should in no way be interpreted as an aspersion on yourself. Indeed, your ability to expound on the issues you have, shows you transcend your place of work.  ;-) EofT

The law and economics approach is now very influential throughout Europe, both in the legal academy and in economics departments. It is simply no longer the case that this is an American approach.- User:Lsolum

That too should be stated. But, I caution, the nuclear weapon, genetically modified organisms and promotion of molecular engineering have also spread beyond the USA where they were conceived, and this is also not seen as a good thing. Any theory that originates with a group with clear political coherence, ought to be attributed here to that group, and not presented as an emergent field that came from a cross-national consensus. EofT

The entry can sort some of this out. Law and economics has both right and left tendancies, with a neoclassical wing and a social welfare (Berman-Samuelson) wing. User:Lsolum

Fine. Is there also a green tendency? It seems I have heard many arguments made in economic language about natural capital for instance, and various arguments about supply and demand in ecology being modelld in the same ways as in economics, and this forming a new view of economics. Lester Thurow for instance puts "the environment" at the very base of his pyramid of value - a macro view. Also there is the critique of debt from this perspective in creditary economics. All of these involve pointing out some bias from consumerism, productivism, or just ignoring the way nature's services supply resources and deal with wastes. This can be *very* micro. Nano even.  ;-) EofT

Green tendancy in law and economics. Don't clutter this entry with ideas that belong in other entires. -User:NashEquilbrium

Agreed it should not be cluttered, nor more than mentioned if it's not debated under that name. But I think specifically of Lynn Margulis's view that "Economy is the study of how humans make a living. Ecology is the study of how other species make a living." Thus the linking concept of natural law as a source of human law, and the basis of economics as necessary requiring both. So even if the field "law and economics" does not notice this, yet, it is certainly an issue in "law" and "economics". You see? EofT

Thank you for the comments.- User:Lsolum

So polite. I suspect you are a closet Canadian.  ;-) EofT

Nice work so far. I'm a student so I won't kid you with any attempts at advice but as someone new to the topic, your page is a good introduction. I came across your article via the libertarian theories of law page and only then as an afterthought because of a book I recently read, B. Caldwell's Hayek's Challenge. The subtitle 'An intellectual history' pretty well sums it up. I'd initially picked it up to fill in some holes I had concerning Hayek's work in economics so I was surprised to find he'd ventured into jurisprudence. Imagine my added surprise when I found your page and, low and behold, law and econ is an independent field of study. As a poli-sci student about to graduate, the fact that I've never heard of it makes me seriously question the quality of my education. But enough with the complaining, just a question: Are the books you cited by Coase and Posner suitable starting points for a noob? I'm fairly familiar with political economy. My primary concern is an illustration of the ideological differences between the two. User:Silas

By the bye, EofT got quite the raw deal.User:Silas