Menu Expand
  1. Journals
  2. Economics, Finance, Business & Management
  3. Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch
  4. Vol. 142, Issue 1
  5. pp. 21–40

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
van Emmerick, E., Dold, M. Opportunity, not Welfare: How Behavioral Insights Should Lead to a Reorientation of the Normative Foundation in Law and Economics. Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, 142(1), 21-40. https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.142.1.21
van Emmerick, Elias and Dold, Malte "Opportunity, not Welfare: How Behavioral Insights Should Lead to a Reorientation of the Normative Foundation in Law and Economics" Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch 142.1, 2022, 21-40. https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.142.1.21
van Emmerick, Elias/Dold, Malte (2022): Opportunity, not Welfare: How Behavioral Insights Should Lead to a Reorientation of the Normative Foundation in Law and Economics, in: Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, vol. 142, iss. 1, 21-40, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.142.1.21
Format
Download

Opportunity, not Welfare: How Behavioral Insights Should Lead to a Reorientation of the Normative Foundation in Law and Economics

van Emmerick, Elias | Dold, Malte

Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, Vol. 142 (2022), Iss. 1 : pp. 21–40

1 Citations (CrossRef)

Read Now Download (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.142.1.21
Language
English
Pages
20
Keywords

Author Details

Elias van Emmerick, University of Chicago Law School 1111 E 60th St., Chicago, IL 60637 Chicago, IL, United States

Ass. Prof. Malte Dold, Economics Department, Pomona College 425 N. College Ave 91711 Claremont, CA, United States

Cited By

  1. Endogenous preferences: a challenge to constitutional political economy’s normative foundation?

    Dold, Malte

    (2023)

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-023-09417-w [Citations: 0]

References

  1. Ainslie, G. 2001. Breakdown of Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  2. Angner, E. 2015. Behavioral Welfare Economics, Libertarian Paternalism, and the Nudge Agenda. GMU Working Paper in Economics No. 15 – 29. George Mason University, Department of Economics.  Google Scholar
  3. Ariely, D., G. Loewenstein, and D. Prelec. 2003. “Coherent Arbitrariness: Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (1): 73 – 106.  Google Scholar
  4. Asay, C. D., A. Sloan, and D. Sobczak. 2019. “Is Transformative Use Eating the World?” BYU Law Research Paper No. 19 – 06.  Google Scholar
  5. Azar, J, I. Marinescu, and M. I. Steinbaum. 2017. “Labor Market Concentration.” Working Paper No. 24147 National Bureau of Economic Research.  Google Scholar
  6. Bar-Gill, O. and C. Fershtman. 2004. “Law and Preferences.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 20 (2): 331 – 52.  Google Scholar
  7. Becker, G. S. 1968. “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach.” Journal of Political Economy 76 (2): 169 – 217.  Google Scholar
  8. Bernheim, B. D. 2016. “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: A Unified Approach to Behavioral Welfare Economics.” Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis 7 (1): 12 – 68.  Google Scholar
  9. Bowles, S. 1998. “Endogenous Preferences: The Cultural Consequences of Markets and Other Economic Institutions.” Journal of Economic Literature 36 (1): 75 – 111.  Google Scholar
  10. Bowles, S. 2016. The Moral Economy: Why Good Incentives Are No Substitute for Good Citizens. London: Yale University Press.  Google Scholar
  11. Britton-Purdy, J., D. S. Grewal, A. Kapczynski, and K. Sabeel Rahman. 2020. “Building a Law-and-Political-Economy Framework: Beyond the Twentieth-Century Synthesis.” Yale Law Journal 129 (6): 1784 – 835.  Google Scholar
  12. Buchanan, J. M. (1979) 1999. “Natural and Artifactual Man.” In The Collected Works of James M. Buchanan, Volume 1: The Logical Foundations of Constitutional Liberty, 246 – 59. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.  Google Scholar
  13. Buchanan, J. M. (1991) 1999. “The Foundations of Normative Individualism.” In The Collected Works of James M. Buchanan, Volume 1: The Logical Foundations of Constitutional Liberty, 281 – 91. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.  Google Scholar
  14. Camerer, C. F. 2003. Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.  Google Scholar
  15. Chen, Z. 2004. Monopoly and Product Diversity: The Role of Retailer Countervailing Power. Carleton Economic Papers No. 04 – 19. Carleton University, Department of Economics.  Google Scholar
  16. Chernev, A., U. Böckenholt, and J. Goodman. 2015. “Choice Overload: A Conceptual Review and Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 25 (2): 333 – 58.  Google Scholar
  17. Cowen, T. 1993. “The Scope and Limits of Preference Sovereignty.” Economics & Philosophy 9 (2): 253 – 69.  Google Scholar
  18. Delmotte, C. and M. Dold. 2021. “Dynamic Preferences and the Behavioral Case Against Sin Taxes.” Constitutional Political Economy 33 (1): 80 – 99.  Google Scholar
  19. Derenoncourt, E., C. Noelke, D. Weil, and B. Taska. 2021. Spillover Effects from Voluntary Employer Minimum Wages. Working Paper 29425. Working Paper Series. Cambridge, MA, National Bureau of Economic Research.  Google Scholar
  20. Dold, M. 2018. “Back to Buchanan? Explorations of Welfare and Subjectivism in Behavioral Economics.” Journal of Economic Methodology 25 (2): 160 – 78.  Google Scholar
  21. Dold, M., E. van Emmerick, and M. Fabian. 2022. “Taking Psychology Seriously? A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Robert Sugden’s Opportunity Criterion. Accessed November 7, 2022. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344380291_Taking_Psychology_Seriously_A_Self-Determination_Theory_Perspective_on_Robert_Sugden%27s_Opportunity_Criterion.  Google Scholar
  22. Dold, M. and M. J. Rizzo. 2021. “Old Chicago against Static Welfare Economics.” Journal of Legal Studies 50 (S2): 179 – 98.  Google Scholar
  23. Dold, M. and C. Schubert. 2018. “Toward a Behavioral Foundation of Normative Economics.” Review of Behavioral Economics 5 (3 – 4): 221 – 41.  Google Scholar
  24. Druckman, J. N. 2001. “Evaluating Framing Effects.” Journal of Economic Psychology 22 (1): 91 – 101.  Google Scholar
  25. Elster, J. 2000. Ulysses Unbound: Studies in Rationality, Precommitment, and Constraints. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  26. Fabian, M. and M. Dold. 2022. “Agentic Preferences: A Foundation for Nudging When Preferences are Endogenous.” Behavioral Public Policy: 1 – 21.  Google Scholar
  27. Feldman, R. 2018. “May Your Drug Price Be Evergreen.” Journal of Law and the Biosciences 5 (3): 590 – 647.  Google Scholar
  28. Grüne-Yanoff, T. and S. O. Hansson, eds. 2009. Preference Change: Approaches from Philosophy, Economics and Psychology. Dodrecht: Springer.  Google Scholar
  29. Hansson, S. O. and T. Grüne-Yanoff. (2006) 2017. “Preferences.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archive (Fall 2021 Edition) edited by E. N. Zalta: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/preferences/.  Google Scholar
  30. Hausman, D. M. 2011. Preference, Value, Choice, and Welfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  31. Iyengar, S. S. and M. R. Lepper. 2000. “When Choice Is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (6): 995 – 1006.  Google Scholar
  32. Jolls, C. 2007. Behavioral Law and Economics. Working Paper No. 12879. National Bureau of Economic Research.  Google Scholar
  33. Jolls, C., C. R. Sunstein, and R. H. Thaler. 1998. “A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics.” Stanford Law Review No 1471 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2292029.  Google Scholar
  34. Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.  Google Scholar
  35. Kahneman, D., J. L. Knetsch, and R. H. Thaler. 1990. “Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem.” Journal of Political Economy 98 (6): 1325 – 48.  Google Scholar
  36. Kaplow, L. and S. Shavell. 1999. Economic Analysis of Law. Discussion Paper No. 251, Harvard Law School, John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics and Business. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=150860.  Google Scholar
  37. Kaplow, L. and S. Shavell. 2003. Fairness Versus Welfare. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  Google Scholar
  38. Kim, J. B., P. Albuquerque, and B. J. Bronnenberg. 2010. “Online Demand Under Limited Consumer Search.” Marketing Science 29 (6): 1001 – 23.  Google Scholar
  39. Landes, W. M. and R. A. Posner. 1989. “An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law.” Journal of Legal Studies 18 (2): 325 – 63.  Google Scholar
  40. Landes, W. M. and R. A. Posner. 2009. The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  Google Scholar
  41. Lewis, P. and M. Dold. 2020. “James Buchanan on the Nature of Choice: Ontology, Artifactual Man and the Constitutional Moment in Political Economy.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 44 (5): 1159 – 79.  Google Scholar
  42. Loewenstein, G. 2005. “Hot-Cold Empathy Gaps and Medical Decision Making.” Health Psychology 24 (4): 49 – 56.  Google Scholar
  43. Loewenstein, G. and E. Angner. 2003. “Predicting and Indulging Changing Preferences.” In Time and Decision: Economic and Psychological Perspectives on Intertemporal Choice, edited by G. Loewenstein, D. Read, and R. F. Baumeister, 351 – 91. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.  Google Scholar
  44. McQuillin, B. and R. Sugden. 2012. “Reconciling Normative and Behavioural Economics: The Problems to Be Solved.” Social Choice and Welfare 38 (4): 553 – 67.  Google Scholar
  45. Mitchell, G. 2002. “Why Law and Economics’ Perfect Rationality Should Not Be Traded for Behavioral Law and Economics’ Equal Incompetence.” Research Paper No. 49, FSU College of Law. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=306562.  Google Scholar
  46. Neumark, D., J. Zhang, and S. Ciccarella. 2008. “The Effects of Wal-Mart on Local Labor Markets.” Journal of Urban Economics 63 (2): 405 – 30.  Google Scholar
  47. Paul, S. 2020. “Antitrust As Allocator of Coordination Rights.” UCLA Law Review 67 (2): 378 – 431.  Google Scholar
  48. Posner, R. A. 1979. “Utilitarianism, Economics, and Legal Theory.” Journal of Legal Studies 8 (1): 103 – 40.  Google Scholar
  49. Posner, R. A. 1981. The Economics of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  Google Scholar
  50. Posner, R. A. 1997. “Rational Choice, Behavioral Economics, and the Law.” Stanford Law Review 50 (1): 1551 – 75.  Google Scholar
  51. Read, D. 2006. “Which side are you on? The Ethics of Self-Command.” Journal of Economic Psychology 27 (5): 681 – 93.  Google Scholar
  52. Read, D. and B. van Leeuwen. 1998. “Predicting Hunger: The Effects of Appetite and Delay on Choice.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76 (2): 189 – 205.  Google Scholar
  53. Rizzo, M. J. and G. Whitman. 2020. Escaping Paternalism: Rationality, Behavioral Economics, and Public Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  54. Rizzo, M. J. and G. Whitman. 2021. “The Unsolved Hayekian Knowledge Problem in Behavioral Economics.” Behavioural Public Policy 7 (1): 199 – 211.  Google Scholar
  55. Sen, A. 1979. “Utilitarianism and Welfarism.” Journal of Philosophy 76 (9): 463 – 89.  Google Scholar
  56. Sen, A. 1985. Commodities and Capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland.  Google Scholar
  57. Shavell, S. 2003. Economic Analysis of Property Law. Working Paper No. 9695. National Bureau of Economic Research.  Google Scholar
  58. Sheffrin, S. M. 2017. “Behavioral Law and Economics Is Not Just a Refinement of Law and Economics.” Œconomia. History, Methodology, Philosophy 7 (3): 331 – 52.  Google Scholar
  59. Sisco, J. 2022. “New Internal Documents Show Tech Giants Pushing out Competitors.” POLITICO, July 19, 2022. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/19/documents-antitrust-case-google-amazon-00046522.  Google Scholar
  60. Sugden, R. 2018. The Community of Advantage: A Behavioural Economist’s Defence of the Market. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Google Scholar
  61. Sugden, R. 2019. “The Community of Advantage.” Economic Affairs 39 (3): 417 – 23.  Google Scholar
  62. Sugden, R. 2021. “Normative Economics Without Preferences.” International Review of Economics 68 (1): 5 – 19.  Google Scholar
  63. Sugden, R. 2021. “How Hayekian Is Sunstein’s Behavioral Economics?” Behavioural Public Policy 27 (1): 1 – 10.  Google Scholar
  64. Sunstein, C. R. 1997. “How Law Constructs Preferences Essay.” Georgetown Law Journal 86 (7): 2637 – 52.  Google Scholar
  65. Sunstein, C. R. 2019. Conformity: The Power of Social Influences. New York: New York University Press.  Google Scholar
  66. Sunstein, C. R. 2021. “‘Come On, Man!’ On Errors, Choice, and Hayekian Behavioral Economics.” Behavioural Public Policy 7 (1): 212 – 18.  Google Scholar
  67. Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. 1981. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Science 211 (4481): 453 – 58.  Google Scholar
  68. Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. 1989. “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions.” In Multiple Criteria Decision Making and Risk Analysis Using Microcomputers, edited by B. Karpak and S. Zionts, 81 – 126. Berlin: Springer.  Google Scholar
  69. U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. 2022. “Amazon Documents.” Accessed August 6, 2022. https://judiciary.house.gov/online-platforms-and-market-power/amazon-documents.htm.  Google Scholar
  70. Vicini, J. 2008. “Exxon Valdez $2.5 Billion Oil Spill Ruling Overturned.” Accessed November 7, 2022. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-valdez-court-idUSWBT00926720080625.  Google Scholar
  71. Vromen, J. and N. E. Aydinonat. 2021. “Introduction to the Review Symposium on Robert Sugden’s The Community of Advantage.” Journal of Economic Methodology 28 (4): 349.  Google Scholar
  72. Wright, J. D. and D. H. Ginsburg. 2012. “Behavioral Law and Economics: Its Origins, Fatal Flaws, and Implications for Liberty.” Northwestern University Law Review 106 (3): 1033 – 90.  Google Scholar

Abstract

In Fairness versus Welfare (2003), Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell provide a manifesto for normative law and economics. Therein, they spell out the foundations for contemporary law and economics based on a Paretian consequentialist welfarism and a preferentialist account of welfare. We argue in this paper that this normative program faces serious challenges from recent behavioral insights that push back against a core assumption of a preferentialist welfare analysis, i. e., that people hold context-independent, stable preferences across different legal arrangements. We suggest an alternative normative focus for law and economics that borrows from Robert Sugden’s (2018) opportunity criterion, which holds that individuals have an intrinsic interest in expanding their choice sets. We make the case that opportunity, rather than welfare as preference satisfaction, is a more convincing normative standard for law and economics, as its contractarian justification takes people’s broadly construed interests seriously. Moreover, it is methodologically better suited to deal with people’s unstable, context-dependent preferences.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Elias van Emmerick / Malte Dold: Opportunity, not Welfare: How Behavioral Insights Should Lead to a Reorientation of the Normative Foundation in Law and Economics 1
Abstract 1
1. Introduction 1
2. The Normative Foundations of Law and Economics 2
2.1 Context-Dependent Preferences: A Serious Challenge for Welfarist Legal Analysis 3
2.2 A Legal Example: Nonreciprocal Accidents 5
2.3 Welfarists’ Lacking Response 6
3. Alternative Normative Criteria in Economics 7
3.1 The Opportunity Criterion 7
3.2 Opportunity as a Contractarian Alternative 8
4. A Legal Opportunity Criterion 10
4.1 Operationalizing Opportunity 11
4.2 Opportunity as a Touchstone in Rulings: Three Examples 12
5. Conclusion 15
References 16

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2024 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Powered by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.