Some Pitfalls of Economic Theory as a Guide to the Law of Competition

1951 ◽  
Vol 37 (8) ◽  
pp. 1083
Author(s):  
David McCord Wright
Keyword(s):  
Games ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 26
Author(s):  
Leo Katz ◽  
Alvaro Sandroni

This paper shows that the logical properties of constraints imposed by law are fundamentally different from other constraints considered in economics such as budget constraints and bounded rationality constraints, such as the ones based on inattention or shortlisting. This suggests that to fully incorporate law into economics may require a revision of economic theory.


2003 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 191-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Owen A Lamont ◽  
Richard H Thaler

The Law of One price states that identical goods (or securities) should sell for identical prices. In financial markets the law of one price is thought to hold almost exactly, and is the basis for much of financial economic theory. We present evidence on several examples of violations of this law, including closed-end country funds, twin shares, dual class shares, and corporate spinoffs. We analyze the causes of these violations, and show they all stem from some limits on the extent to which rational arbitrageurs can intervene.


Author(s):  
Keith N. Hylton

Criminal law consists of substantive and procedural parts. Substantive law is the set of rules defining conduct that violates the law. Procedural criminal law is the set of rules regulating the process of punishment. Substantive rules apply mostly to individual actors, and procedural rules apply to public enforcement agencies and adjudicators. Economic theory of criminal law consists of normative and positive parts. Normative economic theory, which began with writings by Beccaria and Bentham, aims to recommend an ideal criminal punishment scheme. Positive economic theory, which appeared later in writings by Holmes and Posner, aims to justify and to better understand the criminal law rules that exist. Since the purpose of criminal law is to deter socially undesirable conduct, economic theory, which emphasizes incentives, would appear to be an important perspective from which to examine criminal law. Positive economic theory, applied to substantive criminal law, seeks to explain and to justify criminal law doctrine in economic terms—that is, in terms that emphasize the incentive effects created by the law. The positive economic theory of criminal law literature can be divided into three phases: Classical deterrence theory, neoclassical deterrence, and modern synthesis. The modern synthesis provides a rationale for fundamental criminal law doctrines and also more puzzling portions of the law such as the doctrines of intent and necessity. Positive economic theory also provides a rationale for the allocation of enforcement responsibilities.


2010 ◽  
Vol 55 (186) ◽  
pp. 67-87
Author(s):  
Petar Filipic

The concept of utility became rightfully recognized in economic theory with the introduction of decreasing marginal utility. However a question that arises is: does an increasing consumption of goods always and without exception lead to diminishing marginal utility? It is quite possible that in some cases marginal utility of goods and services actually increases. If this fact is true, it might additionally strengthen the utility theory and make it applicable in numerous cases of economic and social reality. This paper uses the example of the utility of studying at university (i.e. the utility of university examinations), and tries to add a few arguments in favour of the statement that the law of increasing utility exists.


2021 ◽  
pp. 001946622110172
Author(s):  
Christian Gehrke

The study discusses Krishna Bharadwaj’s elaboration of the Sraffian critique of the currently dominating supply-and-demand equilibrium theories that are based on the marginalist approach by making use of documents from the Sraffa archive. Starting from Krishna Bharadwaj’s astute observation that the law of diminishing returns ‘was the thin end of the wedge by which the marginal analysis was introduced and generalised’ the study is concerned with Sraffa’s critique of the marginalist treatment of intensive diminishing returns and his return to a pre-marginalist and non-mechanical analysis of the intensification of land use. In the opening part of the article, the development of the friendship and collaboration between Piero Sraffa and Krishna Bharadwaj is briefly recalled, based on information provided in the correspondence files and diary entries in Sraffa’s papers. JEL Code: B24, B31, B51


1996 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 71
Author(s):  
James D Palmer

The law governing the recovery of negligently inflicted pure economic losses is complex and confusing. This article focuses on pure economic losses caused by negligently performed financial services, and considers whether a "law and economics" approach provides a superior framework for analysing the desirability of imposing negligence liability than that provided by traditional legal analysis. The article first discusses the law regarding negligently performed financial services and critiques the legal reasoning used to justify restricted liability. The author then introduces the law and economics approach to negligence liability. The special considerations which apply when a loss is purely economic and caused by a carelessly performed financial service are then analysed. Finally, a rule of discovery based on the economic analysis is presented, and its application is discussed with respect to some of the leading cases. The author concludes that the economic approach provides a powerful set of tools capable of explaining the major decisions in this area in terms of economic efficiency and wealth maximisation. It provides a clearer understanding of the factors that determine what the appropriate restrictions are, and is thus more convincing for determining liability than traditional legal analysis. 


Legal Studies ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 491-512
Author(s):  
Steve Hedley

What is negligence? Our answers to this are frequently misleading, because we turn all our attention on to what doctrine says rather than asking how it is actually used. So we routinely talk of personal liability, even though we know very well that individuals (as opposed to organisations, typically insurers) do not pay damages. We think of negligence doctrine as if it were applied automatically and without bias, when in fact the complex insurance arrangements involved have rather decided biases. And we treat the development of the law purely as a matter of evolving judicial thought, when in fact legislatures and insurers also routinely modify the system in response to new realities. The result is that fundamental change has occurred under the very noses of theorists, who still tell us that negligence holds individual defendants responsible for their wrongdoing (it does not) or that the economic effect of tort rules is to deter defendants (there is not much reason to think this is so). Why are the leading theoretical justifications of negligence – corrective justice, responsibility theory and economic theory – so dependent on myths? Is it because the myths do not matter? Or is it that, in fact, we have no good justification for the system as it works in practice at all – we have no good theory of why negligence makes sense because it does not, in reality, make sense?


2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ron Harris

After the rise to dominance of the neo-classical school in economics in the 1920s and 1930s, legal historians manifested very little interest in economic theory. After the cliometric revolution of the early 1960s, most legal historians expressed declining interest in economic historians. After the rise of Critical Legal History and cultural legal history in the late 1970s and early 1980s, many legal historians showed diminishing interest in the economy. This trend was augmented by the expansion of law and economics as a leading jurisprudence and methodology within the law schools. Most legal historians viewed themselves as part of a camp in the law schools, whether of the humanities oriented scholars, of post modernists, or of critical scholars, who were antagonists of the law and economics camp. These legal historians often identified all economists with law and economics and further disassociated themselves from economic historians. Ironically, the less legal historians consider economic history, economic theory, and the economy itself as relevant to their purposes, the more economic historians are discovering the relevancy of the law and of legal history to theirs. This article suggests to legal historians that the time is ripe to revisit economic history and theory and to reconsider their long-established indifference toward them.


Author(s):  
Ali Hasannia

“Manṭiqat al-Firāq”, a Shiite economic theory, points to an area in religion without a biding legal statement. This theory was presented by S.M.B. al-Ṣadr in his book Our Economy. According to the theory, religion has allowed the Islamic ruler to lay down rules and regulations in certain social matters, taking into account the rules and according to the needs of time. In his book, Ṣadr divides the economic school of Islam into two parts: The part Islam has laid down its laws and rules, and so they are unchangeable. The part Islamic State is responsible to determine the laws and it must lay down the law and order with regard to the needs of time. The latter has been called “Manṭiqat al-Firāq” by him, arguing the Prophet (PBUH) used to perform it as well and made legislations as the ruler of the society (not as the Prophet). In his opinion, this type of Prophet's laws is not permanent and stable in the Islamic school of thought. The present paper aims to review the theory and analyze Islamic scholars’ opinions concerning it. There are defenses and criticisms about the theory; e.g. some argue this theory expresses appropriate materials for treating both governmental and non-governmental narratives, but does not provide a criterion for separating them from each other. His evidences to prove the theory and his claims of contradictory between the theory and Qur’anic verses and narratives claiming the comprehension of Islam and its decrees, have been also criticized, which here fall at glance and discussion.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document