Research article
Law & Economics as a Theory of Decision Making in Legal Contexts – Decision Theoretical Foundations, Their Misinterpretations and Excessive Claims of Economic Analysis of Law
Law & Economics jako teoria procesów decyzyjnych w kontekstach prawnych – podstawy teoretyczne decyzji, ich błędne interpretacje i przesadne tezy ekonomicznej analizy prawa
Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, nr 1(4)/2012, s. 34-50
Polish
Translated abstract
W artykule ujmuje się law & economics jako propozycję teorii procesów decyzyjnych w kontekstach prawnych. Podkreśla się, że rozróżnienie między dwoma podejściami w ekonomicznej analizie prawa: neoklasycznym i behawioralnym, dokonuje się w odniesieniu do dwóch różnych teorii podejmowania decyzji stosowanych w dziedzinie każdego z nich. Podejście neoklasyczne opiera się na teorii oczekiwanej użyteczności, natomiast behawioralne – na teorii perspektywy. Według przedstawicieli obu z nich, zastosowanie teorii procesu decyzyjnego może być pomocne w oddziaływaniu przez normy prawne na zachowania adresatów w bardziej wyrafinowany sposób. Tezą artykułu jest to, że badacze z kręgu law & economics błędnie interpretują założenia i twierdzenia teorii i / lub formułują nadmierne twierdzenia, jeśli twierdzą, że ustalenia teoretyczne dotyczące decyzji dostarczają wiedzy na temat sposobu, w jaki prawo wpływa na ludzkie decyzje.
Translated keywords
- ekonomiczna analiza prawa
- teoria procesów decyzyjnych
- norma prawna
English
Abstract
The article treats law & economics as a proposal of a theory of decision making in legal settings. It is emphasized that the distinction between two approaches in economic analysis of law: the neoclassical and the behavioral one, is made with reference to two different theories of decision making applied in the realm of each approach. The neoclassical approach is based on the theory of expected utility, whereas the behavioral one – on prospect theory. According to the scholars on both sides, application of decision theory might be helpful in influencing behavior by legal norms in a more sophisticated way. The claim of the article is that law & economics scholars misinterpret the assumptions and propositions of the theories and/or formulate excessive claims, if they argue that decision theoretical findings provide knowledge about the way in which people’s decisions are influenced by law.
Keywords
- law & economics
- theory of decision making
- legal norm
References
18 reference entries
References
-
Alchian, A. (1965). Some Economics of Property Rights. Il Politico 30/4, 816–829.
-
Allais, M. (1953). Le Comportement de l’Homme Rationnel devant le Risque: Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de l’Ecole Americaine. Econometrica 21/4, 503–546.
-
Arlen, J.H., Talley, E.L. (2008). Experimental Law and Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
-
Blaug, M. (1992). Methodology of Economics or How Economists Explain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Calabresi, G. (1961). Some Thoughts on Risk Distributions and the Law of Torts. Yale Law Journal 70/4, 499–553.
-
Coase, R. (1960). The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics 3, 1–44.
-
Cooter, R., Ulen, T. (2004). Law & Economics. Boston: Pearson-Addison Wesley.
-
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review. Journal of Economic Literature 40/2, 351–401.
-
Jolls, C., Sunstein, C., Thaler, R. (1998). A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics. Stanford Law Review 50/5, 1471–1550.
-
Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica 47/2, 263–292.
-
Langevoort, D.C. (1998). Behavioral Theories of Judgment and Decision Making in Legal Scholarship: A Review of Literature. Vanderbilt Law Review 51/6, 1499–1540.
-
von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
-
Peterson, M. (2009). An Introduction to Decision Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Posner, R.A. (1972). Economic Analysis of Law. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
-
Posner, R.A. (1987). The decline of law as an autonomous discipline: 1962–1987. Harvard Law Review 761, 761–780.
-
Samuelson, P. (1937). A Note on Measurement of Utility. The Review of Economic Studies 4/2, 155– 161.
-
Shavell, S. (2007). Liability for accidents. In M. Polinsky, S. Shavell (Eds.), Handbook of Law and Economics (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
-
Sunstein, C. (2000). Introduction. In C. Sunstein (Ed.), Behavioral Law & Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Publication information
Issue data
Issue nr 1(4)/2012
- Pages
- 34-50
- Published
How to cite
Bibliographic description and verified export formats.
Format AFPiFS
M. Małecka, Law & Economics as a Theory of Decision Making in Legal Contexts – Decision Theoretical Foundations, Their Misinterpretations and Excessive Claims of Economic Analysis of Law, „Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej” nr 1(4)/2012, s. 34–50, DOI: 10.36280/afpifs.2012.1.34
ACM
[1] Magdalena Małecka. 2012. Law & Economics as a Theory of Decision Making in Legal Contexts – Decision Theoretical Foundations, Their Misinterpretations and Excessive Claims of Economic Analysis of Law. AFPiFS 1(4) (2012), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2012.1.34
ACS
(1) Małecka, M. Law & Economics as a Theory of Decision Making in Legal Contexts – Decision Theoretical Foundations, Their Misinterpretations and Excessive Claims of Economic Analysis of Law. AFPiFS 2012, No. 1(4), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2012.1.34.
APA
Małecka, M. (2012). Law & Economics as a Theory of Decision Making in Legal Contexts – Decision Theoretical Foundations, Their Misinterpretations and Excessive Claims of Economic Analysis of Law. Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, 1(4), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2012.1.34
ABNT
MAŁECKA, Magdalena. Law & Economics as a Theory of Decision Making in Legal Contexts – Decision Theoretical Foundations, Their Misinterpretations and Excessive Claims of Economic Analysis of Law. Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, n. 1(4), p. 34–50, 2012.
Chicago
Małecka, Magdalena. “Law & Economics as a Theory of Decision Making in Legal Contexts – Decision Theoretical Foundations, Their Misinterpretations and Excessive Claims of Economic Analysis of Law.” Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, no. 1(4) (2012): 34–50. https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2012.1.34.
Harvard
Małecka, M. (2012) “Law & Economics as a Theory of Decision Making in Legal Contexts – Decision Theoretical Foundations, Their Misinterpretations and Excessive Claims of Economic Analysis of Law,” Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, 1(4), pp. 34–50. Available at: https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2012.1.34.
IEEE
[1] M. Małecka, “Law & Economics as a Theory of Decision Making in Legal Contexts – Decision Theoretical Foundations, Their Misinterpretations and Excessive Claims of Economic Analysis of Law,” AFPiFS, no. 1(4), pp. 34–50, 2012, doi: 10.36280/afpifs.2012.1.34.
MLA
Małecka, Magdalena. “Law & Economics as a Theory of Decision Making in Legal Contexts – Decision Theoretical Foundations, Their Misinterpretations and Excessive Claims of Economic Analysis of Law.” Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, no. 1(4), 2012, pp. 34–50, https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2012.1.34.
Turabian
Małecka, Magdalena. “Law & Economics as a Theory of Decision Making in Legal Contexts – Decision Theoretical Foundations, Their Misinterpretations and Excessive Claims of Economic Analysis of Law.” Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, no. 1(4) (2012): 34–50. https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2012.1.34.
Vancouver
1. Małecka M. Law & Economics as a Theory of Decision Making in Legal Contexts – Decision Theoretical Foundations, Their Misinterpretations and Excessive Claims of Economic Analysis of Law. AFPiFS. 2012;1(4):34–50. doi:10.36280/afpifs.2012.1.34
OSCOLA
Magdalena Małecka, ‘Law & Economics as a Theory of Decision Making in Legal Contexts – Decision Theoretical Foundations, Their Misinterpretations and Excessive Claims of Economic Analysis of Law’ (2012) 1(4) AFPiFS 34 <https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2012.1.34>.