European Editors of Economics Journals—A General Discussion

In a final inquiry at the end of the Conference on Editorial Policies the three editors, Bruno S. Frey (Kyklos), Manfred J. Holler (Homo oeconomicus), and Jürgen G. Backhaus (European Journal of Law and Economics), were asked to comment on their editorial policies. They answered by explaining the challenges they were or still are confronted with, which strategies they have already developed to go on and of course what they have learnt from the deliberations at this conference. In their statements they referred to their preceding paper presentations, and the contributions by Wolfgang Bergsdorf, who is the chief editor of Die Politische Meinung, and Peter Senn.     

A Different Reason for “De-Coasing” Environmental Law and Economics

The so-called Coase Theorem is one of the cornerstones of the Law and Economics approach. This paper investigates whether it is appropriate to apply the Coasean framework in the context of Environmental Law and Economics. Even when transaction costs are zero, it is argued that in the specific case of environmental policy the initial assignment of rights will seriously affect the final allocation of resources. To support this thesis empirical evidence backed up by theoretical explanations are presented. The methodological distinction between negligible, domain and heuristic assumptions and the elaboration of a ‘logical time’ of the Coase Theorem are crucial to understand why eventually the Coase Theorem should not be applied to the realm of environmental law and policy.JEL Classification: D23, K0, K32, Q2     

Towards the Law &; Economics of development: Ragnar Nurkse (1907–1959)

The purpose of this essay is, first, to suggest Ragnar Nurkse as a Law & Economics thinker, and second, yet more importantly, to demonstrate the possibility and desirability of a Law & Economics of Development along Nurksean lines. Ragnar Nurkse (1907–1959), whose 100th birthday is celebrated in 2007, is one of the founding fathers of classic development economics. Given the recent interest in the Law & Economics of development, showing how a classic figure in the field successfully used such an approach might be of considerable interest, especially as development economics is a very emotional field which may well profit from the ‘objectivizing’ function of Law & Economics. Nurkse’s economics-based realism, his focus on what effect a program really has, rather than what it is supposed to have, and on what a policy can steer or change and what not, based on a typically Stiglerian attention to aggregate welfare, seem especially productive. Finally, the essay suggests a set of Nurkse-based principles or theses for a Law & Economics of Development.