Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law and Economics Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law and Economics

What Do Lawyers Contribute To Law & Economics?, Robert E. Scott, George G. Triantis Jan 2020

What Do Lawyers Contribute To Law & Economics?, Robert E. Scott, George G. Triantis

Faculty Scholarship

The law-and-economics movement has transformed the analysis of private law in the United States and, increasingly, around the world. As the field developed from 1970 to the early 2000s, scholars have developed countless insights about the operation and effects of law and legal institutions. Throughout this period, the discipline of law-and-economics has benefited from a partnership among trained economists and academic lawyers. Yet the tools that are used derive primarily from economics and not law. A logical question thus demands attention: what role do academic lawyers play in law-and-economics scholarship? In this Essay, we offer an interpretive theory of the …


A Comment On The Relationship Between Judicial Salary And Judicial Quality, Stephen G. Marks Jun 2008

A Comment On The Relationship Between Judicial Salary And Judicial Quality, Stephen G. Marks

Faculty Scholarship

Professor Scott Baker was kind enough to present his empirical research on the relationship between judicial salary and judicial quality to the Law and Economics Workshop run by Professor Keith Hylton and me last fall and I am honored to be able to comment on it today. It is part of a growing body of literature in law that tries to shed light on important issues through statistical analysis. Baker's paper, even before its publication, generated a significant amount of buzz.


Thinking To Be Paid Versus Being Paid To Think, Merritt B. Fox Jan 1994

Thinking To Be Paid Versus Being Paid To Think, Merritt B. Fox

Faculty Scholarship

In the first chapter of The Economic Structure of Corporate Law, Frank Easterbrook and Daniel Fischel make an arresting statement:

... [P]eople who are backing their beliefs with cash are correct; they have every reason to avoid mistakes, while critics (be they academics or regulators) are rewarded for novel rather than accurate beliefs. Market professionals who estimate these things wrongly suffer directly; academics and regulators who estimate wrongly do not pay a similar penalty. Persons who wager with their own money may be wrong, but they are less likely to be wrong than are academics and regulators, who are wagering …