Archive for 14 May 2008
Greetings from Leuven
| Randy Westgren |
I am sorry to have been lax in fulfilling my (implicit) obligations as a guest blogger. I have been in Belgium for about 36 hours, centered at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, with 2 dozen undergraduates at the beginning of a two-week study tour which follows on from a semester-long course in the spring semester. The nonpecuniary transaction costs for getting myself from a Midwest university town to another university town 1/3 of the world away have caused me to self-medicate with several of the excellent Trappist brews from Flanders. As a consequence, (a) my attitude has improved greatly and (b) my productivity has plummeted. There are a couple of posts that are near the end of gestation and will follow soon. Alas, tomorrow (Thursday) will be a Brussels day — McDonald’s EU HQ, US Trade Rep assigned to the Mission, the DG for EU agricultural policy, and a reception at the Flemish industrialists’ club, De Warande. So, you’ll have to wait another day. . . .
P.S. Don’t tell anyone how hard professors work.
Manne on Ideology and the Law-and-Economics Movement
| Peter Klein |
Josh Wright has written a thoughtful and informative series on the future of law and economics (1, 2, 3, 4). Key issues include the increasing formalism of L&E scholarship, the place of L&E within law schools (as opposed to economics departments), and the influence of L&E on legal practice and public policy.
The latest entry focuses on a response to Josh by Henry Manne, the founder of the modern law-and-economics movement (and, I might add, a regular reader of O&M). Manne argues that ideology, more than genuine scientific disagreement, explains the often-hostile reaction to L&E within the legal establishment, a theme we’ve explored in several posts (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
I think that the major issues are now, as they were fifty years ago, mainly ideological, and I believe that the causes forcing L&E out of the law schools today are the very same ones that operated to prevent my getting better jobs in the 1960s and for most senior law professors to think that what I was advocating was sheer nonsense, “to the right of Genghis Kahn,” as they used to be so stupidly amused at repeating ad nauseum. They were protecting their intellectual investment in skills and ideology against the threat of a new paradigm in which they could not share the rents, and I do believe that that is exactly what is still happening. While you and I see enormous social benefits from a legal system based on the idea of property rights and their protection, all they see is less role for the government and themselves. Perhaps this acts at an unconscious level, but it unmistakably is at work whatever the source of the peculiar leftist ideology of most academics.
What I am saying is that it is impossible to separate completely a discussion of the role of L&E in legal education from the ideological aspects of the subject. I honestly believe that at some level the turn of L&E to econometrics and empirical work is a flight from the implications of a thoroughgoing Alchianesque kind of economics. Perhaps that is even more clear with the current popularity of Behavioral Economics, and of late I even notice in the literature a somewhat open attack on the very idea of freedom of contract. I do not think these developments are accidental or random; I believe that they are inherent in the very structure of modern universities and law schools.









Recent Comments