- A. Mitchell Polinsky, An Introduction to Law and Economics (5th ed. 2018)
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。
Also Professor Wright
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)
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.