Autonomy and private ordering in contract law

This essay reviews Michael J. Trebilcock's book,The Limits of Freedom of Contract (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), examining crucial and controversial social issues within the rigorous framework of the law and economics of contract. The idea that private markets are the primary institutions for the allocation of limited resources is central to any private ordering model of contract law. Yet such a premise leaves a number of fundamental questions unanswered. Trebilcock is critical of the insufficiency and ambiguity of current contract theory in addressing fundamental legal issues relating to the limits of freedom of contract. Pushing the frontiers of current legal theory, Trebilcock revisits the slippery notion of freedom of contract and tests the actual reach of economic analysis in providing a coherent answer to compelling social questions. The author pursues his ambitious task by examining the conclusions reached by competing paradigms of analysis. In spite of his declared trust in the economic approach to law, Trebilcock pays close attention to alternative analytical traditions, comparing the conclusions of various intellectual perspectives with those suggested by an economic framework of private ordering. The book objectively examines strengths and weaknesses of competing views, affording the reader a balanced position from which to conclude for herself, by illustrating the practical implications of the various approaches. In a number of instances, Trebilcock shows how different theoretical premises may indeed be conducive to similar institutional outcomes.Associate Professor of Law, George Mason University. The support of the Sarah Scaife Foundation and of the John M. Olin Foundation is gratefully acknowledged, as are the helpful comments of Jonathan C. Harris and Charles K. Rowley. Extensive remarks received from Michael J. Trebilcock prior to publication allowed me to remedy earlier omissions.     

The Constitutional and Political Economy of Trade Protection

This essay reviews Trade Protection in the United States (Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 1995) by Charles K. Rowley, Willem Thorbecke and Richard E. Wagner. The book stimulates a radical rethinking of trade policy, with results that are applicable well beyond the political framework of the United States. The authors—all advocates of the Virginia public choice school of thought—provide a lucid explanation of the formation of trade policy and systematically explain the many paradoxes of endogenous policymaking. They assess the main players in the process of trade policy formation and rigorously explain the dynamic interaction of the various political organs involved. The authors conclude that unilateral free trade cannot be achieved through the ordinary legislative process, and make a compelling case for Constitutional reform. Given the fragility of free trade equilibria and the inadequacy of bilateral and multilateral trade treaties for a stable free trade environment, the right to trade should be constitutionally guaranteed as an individual right. Considering the relevance of the authors' conclusions in this phase of consolidation of European trade policymaking, this essay examines the proposed unilateral free trade amendment, addresses the game theoretic implications, in light of viable alternatives.     

Crowding-out in productive and redistributive rent-seeking

This paper presents a general rent-seeking model in which participants decide on entry before choosing their levels of efforts. The conventional wisdom in the rent-seeking literature suggests that the rent dissipation increases with the number of potential participants and with their productivity of effort. In this paper, we show that this result of the rent-seeking literature is far from general and applies only when participants are relatively weak and enter the game with certainty. In the presence of strong competitors, the expected total dissipation actually decreases, since participation in the game is less frequent. We further consider the impact of competitors’ exit option, distinguishing between “redistributive rent-seeking” and “productive rent-seeking” situations. In redistributive rent-seeking, no social loss results from the fact that all competitors exit the race. In productive rent-seeking, instead, lack of participation creates a social loss (the “lost treasure” effect), since valuable rents are left unexploited. We show that the lost-treasure effect perfectly counterbalances the reduction in rent dissipation due to competitors’ exit. Hence, unlike redistributive rent-seeking, in productive rent-seeking the total social loss remains equal to the entire rent even when parties grow stronger or the number of players increases.     

Author Index Volume 12

Authors Index

Author Index Volume 12     

The Value of Waiting in Lawmaking

Political actors and legislative bodies often invoke net present value calculations to support proposed legislative change. This paper explores the idea that adopting a law is like investing in a productive asset to identify possible misleading applications of net present value calculations. Investment involves incurring a present cost in the expectation of future benefits. Legal systems can be regarded as making investment decisions when incurring present lawmaking costs that will generate benefits over time. Lawmaking investments share, in varying degrees, three important attributes with other investment decisions. First, lawmaking costs cannot be recovered if the enacted rules prove to be ineffective or undesirable at a later time. That is, lawmaking investments are partially or completely irreversible. Second, there is often uncertainty over the future benefits of the legislation. Chosen rules may prove ineffective or changes in the social or economic circumstances may render them obsolete over time. Third, like any investment decision, timing is an issue for lawmakers to determine: lawmaking innovation or revision of current rules can be postponed. Often delays in such investment decisions come at a cost, given the forgone benefits of the investment in the immediate future. This paper focuses on the value of waiting in lawmaking, illustrating the interaction among the above factors in identifying the conditions that determine the optimal timing of legal intervention. The basic model is followed by two extensions. In the first extension, we allow for some learning and informational benefit from the immediate implementation of the new law. In a second extension, we allow for political time preference to affect the lawmaking choice.     

Private property and social costs

This article discusses the widely cherished theme of property rights and externalities, surveying the legal and economic literature that developed around Coase's 1960 article, The Problem of Social Cost. It identifies and appraises the most notable attacks to the Coase theorem and offers an insightful examination of the state of legal and economic scholarship in the wake of Coase's postulate. In revisiting familiar passages, this article shows the pervasive methodological implications of the Coasian approach to property rights and examines the normative and practical significance of the Coasian analysis in various situations of alleged market failure.     

The cost of delegated control: vicarious liability, secondary liability and mandatory insurance

Vicarious liability, secondary liability and mandatory insurance are three systems for attaining judgment-proof or disappearing injurers’ precaution through the direct control of a second party (the vicariously liable principal, the secondary liable party, or the insurer). In this way, the legal system delegates control over some injurers to private entities. Such mechanisms generate monitoring costs. In this paper, we consider who bears the cost of such monitoring, and the effect thereof on the equilibrium level of precautions under different liability rules. We use these findings to explain some of the patterns in the coupling of substantive standards of liability and legal regimes of delegated control.