Some Thoughts on the Genesis of the Efficiency Concept and the Causes of Its Contemporary Status in Legal Discourse


https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2013-1-1-26-38

Full Text:


Abstract

In the present paper we have hypothesized an explanation for the fact that the evaluation of the social impact of law is modeled predominantly by the economic efficiency concept. Considering the early stages of the concept’s development, we try to make it more intelligible to the European lawyers.

About the Author

Sergey Tretyakov
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Associate Professor of Civil Law at Lomonosov Moscow State University (1 Leninskie Gory, GSP-1, Moscow, 119991, Russia)


References

1. Becker G and Posner R, Uncommon Sense: Economic Insights, from Marriage to Terrorism (University of Chicago Press 2007).

2. Becker GS, The Economic Approach to Human Behavior (University of Chicago Press 1978).

3. Collison Black RD, Coats AW, & Goodwin CDW (eds), The Marginal Revolution: Interpretation and Evaluation (Duke University Press 1973).

4. Cooter R and Rappoport P, ‘Were the Ordinalists Wrong about Welfare Economics?’ (1984) 22 J Econ Lit 507.

5. Farber D and Frickey P, Law and Public Choice: A Critical Introduction (University of Chicago Press 1991).

6. Frank J, Law and Modern Mind (Transaction Publishers 2009).

7. Fried B, The Progressive Assault on Laissez Faire (HUP 1998).

8. Friedman M, ‘The Methodology of the Positive Economics’ in M Friedman (ed) Essays in Positive Economics (University of Chicago Press 1953).

9. Garoupta N and Ulen TS, ‘The Market of Legal Innovation: Law and Economics in Europe and the US’ (2007–2008) 59 Ala L Rev 1555.

10. Hovenkamp H, ‘Arrow’s Theorem: Ordinalism and Republican Government’ (1989–90) 75 Iowa L Rev 949.

11. –– ‘Evolutionary Models in Jurisprudence’ (1985) 64 Texas L Rev 645.

12. –– ‘First Great Law & Economics Movement’ (1990) 42 Stanford L Rev 993.

13. –– ‘Knowledge about Welfare: Legal Realism and the Separation of Law & Economics’ (2000) 84 Minnesota L Rev 805.

14. –– ‘Legislation, Well-Being, and Public Choice’ (1990) 57 U Chi L Rev 63.

15. –– ‘Marginal Utility and Coase Theorem’ (1990) 76 Cornell L Rev 783.

16. –– ‘Positivism in Law & Economics’ (1990) 78 Cal L Rev (1990) 815.

17. –– ‘The Limits Preference Based Legal Policy’ (1994) 89 Nw Univ L Rev 4.

18. Howey RS, The Rise of the Marginal Utility School, 1870–1889 (University of Kansas Press 1960).

19. Kelman M, A Guide to Critical Legal Studies (HUP 1987).

20. Kennedy D and Michelman F, ‘Are Property and Contract Efficient?’ (1980) 8 Hofstra L Rev 711.

21. Kirchgässner G, Homo oeconomicus (2nd edn, Mohr Siebeck 2000).

22. Kronman A, ‘The Second Driker Forum for Excellence in the Law’ (1995) 42 Wayne L Rev 115

23. Luhmann N, Ausdifferenzierung des Rechts: Beiträge zur Rechtssoziologie und Rechtstheorie (Suhrkamp 1999).

24. Müller D, Public Choice III (CUP 2003).

25. Parisi F & Smith V (eds), The Law & Economics of Irrational Behavior (SUP 2005).

26. Posner R, Economic Analysis of Law (6th edn, Wolters Kluwer 2003).RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume I (2013) Issue 1 38

27. Robbins L, An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science (Macmillan 1932).

28. Rubin PH, ‘Why is the Common Law Efficient?’ (1977) 6 J Legal Stud 51.

29. Rückert J and Seinecke R (eds), Methodik des Zivilrechts – von Savigny bis Teubner (2nd edn, Nomos 2012).

30. Schlegel JH, American Legal Realism and Empirical Social Science (University of North Carolina Press 1995).

31. Schröder J, Recht als Wissenschaft (2nd edn, CH Beck 2012).

32. Smith V, Rationality in Economics: Constructivist and Ecological Forms (CUP 2008).

33. Summers R, Instrumentalism and American Legal Theory (Cornell University Press 1982).

34. Sunstein C (ed), Behavioral Law & Economics (CUP 2000).

35. –– Free Markets & Social Justice (OUP 1997).

36. Twining W, Karl Llewellyn and the Realist Movement (2nd edn, CUP 2012).


Supplementary files

For citation: Tretyakov S. Some Thoughts on the Genesis of the Efficiency Concept and the Causes of Its Contemporary Status in Legal Discourse. Russian Law Journal. 2013;1(1):26-38. https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2013-1-1-26-38

Views: 732

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


ISSN 2309-8678 (Print)
ISSN 2312-3605 (Online)