アサイド

A. Mitchell Polinsky, An Introduction to Law and Economics (5th ed. 2018)

An Introduction to Law and Economics Image

 学部の法の経済分析の講義でこの教科書を種本として用いました。法の経済分析についての網羅的な検討はできませんが、議論が明晰でわかりやすいので、学部の2単位の授業の教科書又は授業の種本として使うには良いと思います。

法と経済学の未来

 シカゴ大学の教授陣が2011年に法と経済学の未来についてのエッセーを執筆している。Richard Posner裁判官及びBecker教授の随筆など、興味深いものが多いが、Eric Posner教授の随筆で興味深い記述があった。

 曰く、法と経済学が支配している法分野として、次の法律分野を挙げる。

  • 契約
  • 商法
  • 破産法
  • 独占禁止法
  • 会社法
  • 証券法

 支配的ではないが影響を与えている法律分野は、次の通りである。

  • 不法行為法
  • 刑法
  • 財産法
  • 民事訴訟法

 法と経済学があまり進展しなかった分野として、次の分野を挙げる。

  • 憲法
  • 移民法
  • 行政法
  • 国際法

 米国ではどの法律分野も一定程度法と経済学の影響を受けているように思えたが、濃淡はあるようだ。

Also Professor Wright

米国証券取引委員会のPiwowar委員による規制における経済分析

Given the importance of economic analysis to its work, I commend the Board for adopting formal guidance on the subject. Like the SEC’s own internal guidance on conducting economic analysis, the PCAOB’s guidance on rulemaking recognizes four main elements: (1) the need for the rule, (2) the baseline for measuring the rule impacts, (3) the alternatives considered, and (4) the economic impacts of the rule and alternatives. With respect to the last point, there are consequences when rules are adopted – some intended, others not. It is the latter set of consequences, the unintended consequences, for which a robust economic analysis can particularly helpful. …

Myth 1: “Economic analysis” and “cost-benefit analysis” are the same thing …

Myth 2: Economic analysis in rulemaking just slows down the rulemaking process …

Myth 3: Economic analysis is a partisan political issue …

Myth 4: Economic analysis is only relevant to rulemaking …

Myth 5: Economic analysis is only a fad … (footnote omitted)

See also Staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Current Guidance on Economic Analysis in SEC Rulemakings (Mar. 16, 2012).

Ronald Coase (1910–2013)

RIP.

Richard A. Epstein writes:

That ignorance did not remain for long. Shortly after I arrived at the University of Southern California in the summer of 1968, I ran into Michael Levine (who is now with me at NYU Law School) in Dean Dorothy Nelson’s office, and somehow the conversation turned to the year that he had just spent as a Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago. Mention of Ronald brought forth a mention of the Coase Theorem and I remember my puzzled reaction to Levine’s insistence that this was an important piece of work that everyone had to take into account in dealing with legal institutions.

My reaction, I soon discovered, was similar to that of most other people who viewed this work. Indeed, the famous story about Ronald was that when he first presented this paper to the fearless law and economics group at the University of Chicago everyone thought that he was wrong — only to be persuaded by the end of the hour that Ronald had indeed seen the world correctly. It was the first of many conversions that would break in his favor.

via Truth on the Market, Truth on the Market, University of Chicago, PB.com, PB.com, PB.com, Richard A. Epstein, Tag Board, Cato Institute, The Economist, John Kay, N.Y. Times, WSJ