Legal Theory Blog

Legal Theory Lexicon: Welfare, Well-Being, and Happiness

Introduction

Normative legal theory is concerned with the ends and justifications for the law as a whole and for particular legal rules.  Previous entries in the legal have examined exemplars of the three great traditions in normative theory--consequentialist, deontological, and aretaic (or virtue-centered) perspectives.  There are important differences between these three families of theories at a very general and abstract level: for example, deontologists emphasize rights and wrongs while consequentialists emphasize the goodness or badness of states of affairs.  And there are differences between particular theories within the broad families: within consequentialism, for example, welfarists emphasize preference satisfaction, whereas hedonistic utiliarians emphasize pleasure and pain.

Despite these disagreements, I think it is fair to say that many or most of the reasonable views about normative theory agree that what is good or bad for individual humans is morally salient.  Welfarists believe that humans are better off if their preferences are satisified.  Hedonistic utilitarians believe an individual is better off if she experiences more pleasure and less pain.  Aristotle believed that humans flourish if they live lifes of social and rational activity that expresses the human excellences or virtues under conditions of peace and prosperity.  A deontologist who believes that autonomy is the central value might believe that humans are better off if they are autonomous and worse off if they are not  In other words, a wide variety of moral theories agree that what is good for humans is morally salient.

This entry in the Legal Theory Lexicon will examine three related concepts that are related to the good for humans, welfare, well-being, and happiness--and along the way we will explore some related ideas like pleasure, satisfaction, pain, flourishing, and eudaimonia.  Of course, the nature of the human good is a deep topic--one that that has been debated by philosophers, psychologists, economists, theologians, and others for millennia.  All of the great moral and political philosopher, from Plato and Aristotle, through Hobbes, Hume, Kant, Bentham, and Mill, to contemporary figures like Thomas Scanlon and Derek Parfit have engaged in debates about the nature of the human good.  This entry in the Legal Theory Lexicon will only scratch the surface of these debates.  As always, the Lexicon is aimed at law students, especially first-year law students with an interest in legal theory.

Three Concepts

Let's begin by saying a few words about each of the three concepts.  Our aim in this section is not to provide a canonical definition, but instead is to give a sense for the way these terms are used in normative legal theory:

Welfare--The term "welfare" is heavily theory laden.  For contemporary law-and-economics scholars, welfare sometimes operates as a technical term.  One's welfare is a function of one's utility, and most contemporary economists understand utility as a function of one's preferences over states of affairs.  If I prefer a world in which I eat an ice cream cone after lunch to one in which I am abstemious, then the ice cream cone increases my welfare.  But the term "welfare" is also used in a much broader sense, in which my "welfare" is a function of what is good (and bad) for me.  In this sense, my "welfare" might be synonymous with my "well-being" or "flourishing or "happiness."  We might say that there are competing conceptions of the general concept of welfare.

Well-Being--The term "well-being" is similar to "welfare" in the broad and nontechnical sense.  In ordinary language, we frequently associate "well-being" with health--primarily physical health but mental health as well.  Philosophers use this term to refer to what is noninstrumentally good for someone.

Happiness--In ordinary language, the term "happiness" is frequently used to refer to a mental state.  One might think of happiness as a feeling of pleasure, contentment, satisfaction, or enjoyment.  But the word "happiness" is also used as a translation for the Greek word "flourishing," and even in ordinary talk the use of phrases like "true happiness" suggests that not one can have pleasant feelings from moment to moment, but lack "happiness."  Some theorists would reserve the term "happiness" for a stable or enduring quality that is produced by the appropriate features of one's life.  Thus, it might be the case that "a job well done" can make you "happy," but a delicious desert can only give you "pleasure" or "enjoyment."

As is apparent from this very brief introduction of these three concepts, they are connected with others like "pleasure," "pain," "preference," "utility," "flourishing," "enjoyment," and so forth.  But rather than defining each of these concepts, we will now move to a more abstract level and discuss three general views about the nature of human well-being (or welfare in the broad sense).  These three views are offered only as illustrations.  I am not going to attempt to provide a comprehensive catalog.

Three Theories of the Human Good

One way for us to get a better handle on the concepts of welfare, well-being, and happiness is to examine three particular theories of the good for humans:

Hedonism: Philosophical hedonism (which may or may not be related to the view that the good human life is produced by lots of sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll) is the view that the good for humans is pleasure (or more generally positive or enjoyable mental states) and bad for humans is pain (or negative mental states).  Hedonists might believe that pleasure is a distinctive brain state that varies continuously, with the intense pleasure induced by opiates or cocaine at one end of the spectrum, and that pain is similar, with the intense pain of passing a kidney stone at the other end.  But some hedonists believe that pains are differ qualitatively.  John Stuart Mill, for example, thought that there were higher pleasures (e.g., from listening to great music or reading a great novel) and lower pleasures (e.g., from strong drink, drugs, or playing video games).  There are deep questions about the nature of pleasure and pain, but for our purposes let us simplify greatly and assume that all hedonic values (positive or negative) consist of mental states (or brain states, which may or may not be equivalent) that are experienced as positive or negative.

Welfarism: In the legal academy, "welfarism" is strongly associated with normative law and economics.  (But in other disciplines, the terms "welfare" and "welfarism" have other meanings.)  Of course, economists differ among themselves on the nature of welfare, but let us stipulate (for the sake of simplicity) that "welfare" in the economic sense is a function of "utility" and that utility for an individual is a function of the individual's ordinal preferences among states of affairs.  If my preferences are satisfied, then my utility and welfare goes up.  If the world moves in a direction that I would rank lower (and hence disprefer), then my level of welfare goes down.  We might call this theory of "welfare" a "preference satisfaction" theory.

Eudaimonism: The third view that I will outline is based on Aristotle's claim that the highest humanly achievable good is "eudaimonia," which I will translate as "flourishing".  Aristotle believed that humans flourished if they both fared well (lived under the right circumstances) and did well (engaged in valuable activities): hence, Aristotle's claim was that eudaimonia consisted in faring well and doing well.  Let's put faring well aside, and focus on doing well.  Aristotle believed that the nature of "doing well" depends on human nature.  Humans are rational and social creatures.  So a flourishing human life consists of rational and social activities done well.  "Done well" for Aristotle means "expressing the human excellences or virtues."  In sum, a flourishing human life is a life of rational and social activity that expresses the human excellences, and hence a life under conditions of peace and prosperity sufficient to support or enable such activity.

Let's try to make this more concrete by offering examples of three different lives:

The Life of Pleasure: The first life is lived by Ben, who takes great pleasure in sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll.  Ben does what it takes to get enough money to party hard.  He is careful not to overdo or to party so hard that he screws up his life.  Ben's wits are somewhat dulled, and his social interactions might be a bit superficial, but he has a ton of fun almost every day.  It turns out that lots of the time, things don't go the way that Ben prefers--his favorite bands always break up, he doesn't get job he wants, his girlfriends cheat on him.  But Bob doesn't let disappointment interfere with pleasure--if things don't go well, he grabs a brewski, takes a couple of tokes, and chills.

The Life of Satisfaction:  Alice has many preferences about how things should go.  She wants her children to get a good education and live up to their potential.  She wants her city to care for the homeless.  She wants endangered species to be saved.  She works for those things, and as a result of her efforts, her kids do well.  For reasons that were largely out of her control, her city does care for the homeless and many endangered species are saved.  Things go as she wants them to go, but because Alice worries a lot, her satisfaction is only rarely translated into pleasure.  Some of Alice's friends observe that she had the potential to do more with her life, as things turned out, she has what she wants.

The Life of Accomplishment:  Phillipa grows up in an loving and nurturing family and gets an excellent education.  As a result, she becomes an adult who is smart, wise, courageous, temperate, good tempered, caring, responsible: she is a truly excellent human beings, or to put it differently, she is virtuous.  She is reasonable fortunate in her life circumstances as well, so she has a good and stable relationship with her partner, many friends, and meaningful work as an architect.  She lives a balanced life, with periods of intense and difficult work, but also times for fun.  Many of her preferences are satisfied, but many are not.

I hope the description of the three lives is not so oversimplified that it becomes unrealistic.  The point is that the three theories we have described will evaluate the three lives differently.  At least some varieties of hedonism will count Ben's life as the best life--it is a life of pleasure.  There may be pleasure in Alice and Philippa's lives as well, but not as much as in Ben's.  A welfarist who counts all preferences equally might view Alice's life as the life that goes the best: her preferences are satisfied.  Although she doesn't get as much pleasure as Ben, she doesn't prefer a life of pleasure; likewise, she doesn't want to live up to her potential for excellence: she is satisfied with a more passive life.  Philippa gets much of what she wants and experiences her share of pleasures, but as things turn out, her life is worse than Ben and Alice's lives are if the scale is either pleasure or preference satisfaction.  A eudaimonist or virtue theorist will nonetheless say that Philippa's life is the best life.

The Conceptual Space of Debates about the Nature of the Good for Humans

Things are about to get abstract, so watch out.  The next step we will take involves mapping the ways in which the three theories of human good differ.  This is not the only way we could map the conceptual space, but it illuminates some of the important issues.  This map is going to rely on a distinction between the subjective (which is associated with our minds or inner lives) and the objective (which is associated with the world, including our bodies and our environment).  That distinction will then be applied in two dimensions: one concerned with the source of the standards for value and the other concerned with the things that can satisfy those standards.  I warned you--this is abstract, but bear with me.

Objective and Subjective Views of the Sources of the Standards for Human Good: What is the source of our criteria for well-being, happiness, welfare, or the human good?  One possibility is the standards are subjective--they are relative to what we think or feel.  Another possibility is that the standards are objective--they depends on the nature of the world and not our feelings or beliefs about it.

Objective and Subjective Views of the Conditions to Which the Standards for Human Good Are Applied: Once we have standard for human good, we need to apply them to something.  We could apply them to things that are subjective--to our mental states.  Or we could apply them to things that are objective--to states of the world.

OK.  Now we can characterize our three theories of value in light of the two dimensions in which a theory of human value can be objective or subjective.

Hedonisim is usually understood as having both a subjective understanding of the sources of value and a subjective understanding of what those standards apply to.  Our mental states determine what is good or bad for us: it depends on what we get our kicks from and what makes us feel bad.  And our mental states or subjective experiences are what the standards apply to.  So hedonism is subjective in both senses.

Welfarism is committed to a subjective view of what is good and bad for humans.  Our preferences (which are mental states) provide the criteria or standards by which utility and welfare are judged.  But welfarists are objectivists about what these standards are applied to.  Utility is a function of preference over states of the world.  My utility goes up if the world moves to a state I prefer.

Eudaimonism as I have described is a hybrid theory on both levels.  The basic standard of a flourishing life is objective--it is derived from an account of human nature and the virtues.  But for any particular individual, a flourishing life will also be a function of that individuals plans and goals and also a function of what that individual finds satisfying, rewarding, and to some extent pleasurable.  Likewise, a virtue-centered theory of human flourishing takes how one fares (faring well) and how one does (doing well) as the conditions to which the theory is applied.  So the conditions are partially objective.  But the human virtues involve subjective states.  Doing well involves doing the right actin for the right reason.  A flourishing human being has the right preferences and takes enjoyment from the right kinds of things: for this reason, the conditions to which the criteria for the human good are applied are partially subjective.

In other words, hedonism is a subjective-subjective view, welfarism is a subjective-objective view, and eudaimonism is a hybrid-hybrid view.  One can imagine views that might be objetive-objective: for example, if you believed that well-being was cashed out by a list of objective goods, such as health, meaningful work, and an active social life, you might have a view that the standards for human good are objective and that they are satisfied by objective features of particular human lives.

Arguing About (or Investigating) the Nature of Welfare, Well-Being, and Happiness

Which of these rival accounts is the best one?  Of course, the nature of the human good has been the subject of philosophical debate and cultural strife for more than two millennia.  So it will surprise no one that the Legal Theory Lexicon will just skim to the surface of the arguments that can be made for and against various conceptions of welfare, well-being, and happiness.

Let's begin with methodology.  What kinds of reasons might be offered for and against various conceptions of the human good?  Now that is a big topic in itself, but we can identify three of the common strategies used to advance our thinking about this topic:

Reflective Equilibrium: One strategy is to attack the problem directly using the method of reflective equilibrium.  We can begin with intuitions (our unreflective beliefs and the opinions of others) about the topic at hand.  Some of those beliefs will be general and abstract (e.g. "happiness is a feeling").  And some of those beliefs will be quite particular: a serious illiness involves a loss of well-being even if the pain is completely managed).  We can then attempt to formulate a theory of the good for humans (or of welfare, well-being, or happiness) that best fits those intuitions.  Some of our intuitions may need to be revised in light of the tentative theory, and some aspects of the theory may need to be revised in light of recalcitrant intuitions.  Eventually, we can reach a reflective equilibrium between beliefs that have become well-considered judgments and our general theory.

Ethical Theory & Metaethics:  There is a second method that we might employ.  We might begin with our best understanding of metaethics (at what we might think of as the highest level or "top" of normative theory.)  We could then work down through ethical theory to our conception of the human good.  For example, if we adopted an internalist view of moral motivation (i.e., that what is morally good necessarily provides motivation) then we might conclude that our view of the human good must have a certain form if it is to play this motivational role.  We might call this the top-down strategy: we proceed from axioms of metaethics to deduce the postulates and lemmas of our theory of the human good.

Thought Experiments: The notion of a thought experiment (or "hypothetical") is familiar to all legal theorists.  One of the problems of the method of reflective equilibrium may be the tendency of various conceptions of human good to coincide or converge in particular cases.  Our preferences and subjective experiences of happiness may align with elements of objective well-being such as health.  In order to pry these things apart, we might want to construct thought experiments in which force us to evaluate cases in which our subjective happiness diverges from our preferences or health.

The Experience Machine

Robert Nozick is famous for a thought experiment that can be used to test the subjective exerience conception of well-being.  Suppose you have a choice between two lives.  One is roughly equivalent to your current life (or a typical human life).  You experience pleasure and pain; some of your preferences are satisfied and some aren't.  The other life involves your being attached to an experience machine that directly feeds experiences into your brain.  You will be given an amnesiac when you are attached so that you will forget the fact that you are on the experience machine: it will seems as if you current life is continuing.  But your life on the experience machine will be supremely good from the subjective point of view.  You will feel supremely happy.  You will be successful, adored by your friends and partners, and everything that makes you feel good (whether it be career success or Jimmy Choo shoes) will come your way.  This life will involve very little or no pain, frustration, or disappointment.  Finally, the experience machine is well tested, and you are truly convinced that it will cause you no serious physical harm.  Which life would you choose?

Many people would choose a normal life with real experiences and would believe that there life on the experience machine would go very badly--although it would seem as if it were going well.  If you have this reaction to the thought experiments, then you have a reason to believe that you have metaethical intuitions that are inconsistent with a hedonistic-subjectivist conception of well-being.

Of course, this thought experiment can be criticized in various ways.  It might be argued that you aversion to the experience machine is improperly influence by a reaction that being on the machine would be "yucky"--when (by hypothesis) it would not be.  Or it might be the cases that you distrust the long-range effectiveness of the machine.  These issues have to be considered carefully before we place too much stock in the results of a thought experiment.

There is so much more to be said about the inquiry into the nature of the human good, and my discussion of methodology and one thought experiment does not even begin to scratch the surface.  Nonetheless, I hope I have given you an idea of how you might begin to think and argue about this topic.

Why Does the Human Good Matter to Legal Theory?

I imagine that most readers of the Lexicon can see that the nature of the human good has important implications for legal policy.  If the preference satisfaction view of welfare were correct, then normative law and economics might provide the correct methodology for normative legal theory.  If the hedonistic approach were correct, then we would want to pay close attention to empirical research on subjective happiness.  Normative evaluation of legal policy is one of the central activities of legal scholars, and one's views about the human good surely plays a big rule in such evaluations.  Of course, some normative theories (e.g., consequentialism) will given the human good a decisive role in the evaluation of legal policy, whereas others, e.g., deontological or rights based theories might give the human good a less prominent role.

Can We Do Normative Legal Theory Without a Conception of the Human Good?

Given the difficulty of arriving at confident conclusions about the nature of the human good, you might ask, "Can we ever reach confident conclusions in applied normative legal theory?"  Or to put the question differently, "If I can't make up my mind about the nature of the human good, can I still reach confident conclusions about what legal rules are better than others?"  One answer to this question might invoke the Rawlsian idea of an overlapping consensus.  There may be a wide range of cases where the most plausible theories of the human good converge, and legal theorists might focus on those cases.  A related strategy might invoke the idea of "public reasons," and argue that controversial conceptions of the human good are inappropriate as reasons for public policy.  Another strategy might involve a kind of what is called "pragmatism."  (I am using the scare quotes, because I have doubts about the use of that term, but those doubts can be set aside for now.)  That is, we could invoke the theory of the human good that seems most appropriate or salient for each context.  When we do tax policy, we might use the welfarist conception of the human good, but when we are thinking about health policy, we might focus on objective health outcomes.  Of course, there is always the option of abandoning normative theory altogether.  You might come to the conclusion that legal scholars can only describe existing doctrine and provide information about the probably effects of changing that doctrine.

Conclusion

As usual, the Lexicon is both too short and too long.  Too short to even give you and elementary introduction to the issues, but too long for a one minute read.  Nonetheless, I hope to have given you the tools that can help you to identify questions about the human good and to read intelligently about this topic.

Related Entries in the Lexicon

• Legal Theory Lexicon 008: Utilitarianism
• Legal Theory Lexicon 010: Deontology
• Legal Theory Lexicon 012: Virtue Ethics
• Legal Theory Lexicon 016: Positive and Normative Legal Theory
• Legal Theory Lexicon 025: Social Welfare Functions
• Legal Theory Lexicon 028: Concepts and Conceptions
• Legal Theory Lexicon 041: Metaethics
• Legal Theory Lexicon 060: Efficiency, Pareto, and Kaldor-Hicks

Other Resources on the Web

• Roger Crisp, Well-Being, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Andrew Moore, Hedonism, Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Bibliography

• Bentham, J., (1789), An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.
• Feldman, F. (2004) Pleasure and the Good Life (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
• Griffin, J. (1986) Well-being (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
• Mill, J.S., (1863), Utilitarianism.
• Nozick, R., (1974), Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).
• Nussbaum, M and A. Sen (ed.) (1993) The Quality of Life, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Scanlon, T. (1998) What Do We Owe to Each Other?, Harvard: Belknap Press.
• Sumner, W. (1996) Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

(This entry in the Legal Theory Lexicon was last revised on May 31, 2009.)

White on Kantian Ethics & Prisoners' Dilemmas

Mark D. White (College of Staten Island) has posted Kantian Ethics and the Prisoners' Dilemma (Eastern Economic Journal, 2009) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The prisoners' dilemma game stands as a seminal case of the conflict between individual and collective rationality. Some scholars have suggested that Kantian duty-based ethics can prevent the suboptimal outcomes associated with the game. I argue that this claim is too strong, because Kant's moral theory does not entail specific duties requiring cooperation in prisoners' dilemma games. I support this argument in terms of Kant's categorical imperative, and also with reference to his distinction between perfect and imperfect duties.

Anderlini, Felli, and Riboni on Case versus Statute Law

Luca Anderlini , Leonardo Felli and Alessandro Riboni (Georgetown University - Department of Economics , London School of Economics - Department of Economics and University of Montreal - Department of Economics) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:Statute Law or Case Law? on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

In a Case Law regime Courts have more flexibility than in a Statute Law regime. Since Statutes are inevitably incomplete, this confers an advantage to the Statute Law regime over the Case Law one. However, all Courts rule ex-post, after most economic decisions are already taken. Therefore, the advantage of flexibility for Case Law is unavoidably paired with the potential for time-inconsistency. Under Case Law, Courts may be tempted to behave myopically and neglect ex-ante welfare because, ex-post, this may afford extra gains from trade for the parties currently in Court.

The temptation to behave myopically is traded off against the effect of a Court's ruling, as a precedent, on the rulings of future Courts. When Case Law matures this temptation prevails and Case Law Courts succumb to the time-inconsistency problem. Statute Law, on the other hand pairs the lack of flexibility with the ability to commit in advance to a given (forward looking) rule. This solves the time-inconsistency problem afflicting the Case Law Courts. We conclude that when the nature of the legal environment is sufficiently heterogeneous and/or changes sufficiently often, the Case Law regime is superior: flexibility is the prevailing concern. By the same token, when the legal environment is sufficiently homogeneous and/or does not change very often, the Statute Law regime dominates: the ability to overcome the time-inconsistency problem is the dominant consideration.

Hodgson & Jiang on Economics & Corruption

Geoffrey Hodgson and Shuxia Jiang (University of Hertfordshire and Xiamen University) have posted The Economics of Corruption and the Corruption of Economics: An Institutionalist Perspective (Revista de Economía Institucional, Vol. 10, No. 18, First Semester, 2008) on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

This essay criticizes the commonplace definition of corruption as the misuse of public office for private gain. Both elements in this definition are wrong: corruption is also found in the private sector and in some exceptional cases it may not simply be for private gain. Another problem with prevailing treatments of corruption is their reliance on a utilitarian framework, which reduces ethical issues to matters of individual utility. This paper reinstates a non-utilitarian ethical dimension, and regards organizational corruption as involving collusion to violate established normative rules. It is further established that organizational corruption incurs irreducible social costs that cannot fully be internalized in a Coasean manner, because corruption itself undermines the very framework of property rights.

Grechenig & Gelter on Law & Economics in the U.S. & Germany

Kristoffel R. Grechenig and Martin Gelter (University of St. Gallen - Department of Law and Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration - Department of Business Law) have posted The Transatlantic Divergence in Legal Thought: American Law and Economics vs. German Doctrinalism (Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2008) on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

Economic analysis plays a major role in the American legal discourse, while its position in the German-speaking legal debate remains comparatively limited. In Germany and Austria, a widespread aversion against law and economics can be observed among legal scholars. This article advances an explanation for this divergence on the basis of two main factors: First, American legal realism enjoyed great success, whereas the German free-law movement failed to leave a lasting impression. While legal realism transformed American legal thought and opened up the discourse to policy arguments, the predominant German legal theory emphasizes the internal coherence of the legal system, and assigns only a limited role to external elements. Second, the different philosophical roots and attitude towards and utilitarianism and consequentionalist thinking in general can explain why law and economics takes a prominent position in the US legal academia.

Recommended!

Bertacchini, De Mot, and Depoorter on Commons, Anticommons, & Semicommons

Enrico Bertacchini , Jef De Mot and Ben Depoorter (University of Turin - Faculty of Law , Ghent University - Faculty of Law and University of Miami - School of Law) have posted Never Two Without Three: Commons, Anticommons and Semicommons on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

A semicommons regime exists when the efficient use of a resource requires the coexistence of both common and private uses. In a seminal article, Henry Smith examined the system of semicommons property in regard to medieval open-fields. In such a system, peasants shared common land for collective grazing, but used privately owned scattered strips for grain growing. This paper provides the first formal model of semicommons property regimes. Our model demonstrates (1) how the costs of strategic behavior in semicommons regimes may outweigh those in commons regimes and (2) how semicommons regimes may solve collective action problems by introducing anticommons arrangements. We extend previous property literature by offering new insights as to conditions in which mixed property regimes emerge and fragmentation solutions are favored.

Highly recommended.

Reber on the Diffusion of Law & Economics

Kilian Reber (Forschungsstelle für Wirtschaftsgeschichte) has posted Once Upon a Time in America: Barriers to the Diffusion of Law & Economics on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

In 1990, the European Law and Economics Association held a symposium about the state of as well as the impediments to the diffusion of Law & Economics (L&E) in civil law countries. The contributions concluded that the civil law system, legal tradition, legal culture as well as language barriers posed the main difficulties to the diffusion of L&E in the countries considered [Cooter and Gordley 1991: 261ff.]. By focusing only on civil law countries, however, the contributions neglected that the initial diffusion of L&E within the United States had also been impeded. Using economic theory, it is shown in this paper how incentives for economists and law scholars may have contributed to impeding the initial diffusion of L&E. The presented barriers are based on rational behavior by actors in economics and jurisprudence which results in a human capital investment problem and a game theoretic coordination problem for lawyers as well as a tendency for economists not to publish in law journals. Using qualitative evidence it is shown that these barriers are likely to have been at work (even) in the US. Focusing on the US also makes it possible to identify remedies to these diffusion barriers. The barriers, it is argued, were reduced by subsidizing the human capital investment in L&E for lawyers as well as by founding specialized L&E journals to reduce the coordination problem. It is argued that these measures could also be used in civil law countries in order to facilitate the diffusion of L&E.

Svatikova on Economic Criteria for Criminalization

Katarina Svatikova (Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR) - Rotterdam Institute of Law and Economics) has posted Economic Criteria for Criminalization: Why Do We Need the Criminal Law? on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The main purpose of this paper is to identify criteria, using a law and economics approach, demarcating the choice for using criminal law as opposed to other legal remedies, such as administrative or tort law. In other words, it tries to find out why criminal law should be used at all and what the comparative advantages of criminal law are compared to the legal alternatives. By focusing not only on the distinction between tort and crime, but also on the use of criminal law vis-ý-vis administrative law, this paper could provide some contributing remarks. Based upon the analysis in this paper, it is argued that criminalization of an act is/should be seen in areas where: (1) harm is large and/or immaterial and/or diffuse and/or remote; (2) conviction can generate a cost-effective stigma; (3) the probability of detection is low; and/or (4) the regulator can use criminal law as a socialization mechanism. Under these circumstances, criminal law seems to be the instrument that internalizes the social cost of harms.

Arlen & Talley on Experimental Law & Economics

Jennifer Arlen and Eric L. Talley (New York University School of Law and UC Berkeley (Boalt Hall) School of Law) have posted Experimental Law and Economics (Forthcoming in EXPERIMENTAL LAW AND ECONOMICS, Jennifer Arlen and Eric Talley, ed., 2008) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This chapter provides a framework for assessing the contributions of experiments in Law and Economics. We identify criteria for determining the validity of an experiment and find that these criteria depend upon both the purpose of the experiment and the theory of behavior implicated by the experiment. While all experiments must satisfy the standard experimental desiderata of control, falsifiability of theory, internal consistency, external consistency and replicability, the question of whether an experiment also must be contextually attentive  in the sense of matching the real world choice being studied -- depends on the underlying theory of decision-making being tested or implicated by the experiment.

We find that the importance of contextual attentiveness depends on whether the experiment tests or implicates a unitary-process theory of decision-making or a multiple-process theory. Unitary-process theories posit that people employ a single operational approach to make decisions across a broad (or universal) domain of activity. Rational Choice Theory is a unitary-process theory. Because unitary-process theories posit that people employ the same decision-making program in all contexts, experimenters can falsify a unitary-process theory using an experimental choice which bears little resemblance to any real-world choice. Faith in a unitary process account also permits legal policymakers to draw broad normative implications from experiments involving quite artificial choices. By contrast, multiple-process theories hold that people employ multiple decision-making programs when they make choices. Moreover, the relative impact of these programs can depend on the context of the decision. This posited interaction between context and decision-making implies that experimentalists seeking to examine legal decision-making must be sensitive to contextual factors likely to affect deliberative and non-conscious programs in the real world. In addition, policymakers must proceed cautiously before using experimental evidence to draw normative policy conclusions because experimental results may not be robust across contexts.

Russi on Unfair Good Faith Performance

Luigi Russi (Bocconi University) has posted Can Good Faith Performance Be Unfair? An Economic Framework for Understanding the Problem (Whittier Law Review, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2008) on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

The paper deals with the duty of good faith in contract performance, as set out in the U.C.C. In particular, it focuses on the different theories as to its practical meaning, by distinguishing between two types of standards: behavioral and economic ones. The latter are further framed after the Learned Hand formula of negligence, as adapted to contractual relationships by relevant literature. By analyzing the functioning of economic standards in presence of transaction costs, it is then concluded that economic standards are only weakly preferable to behavioral ones which, under certain conditions, may prove as useful in providing a practical meaning to the good faith performance obligation.