Interdisciplinarity and the Authority Paradigm: Should Law Be Taken Seriously by Scientists and Social Scientists?

This article questions whether those outside law should take law seriously as an intellectual discipline capable of contributing to the development of epistemological thinking in the natural and social sciences. The discipline is approached from a diachronic and synchronic position with emphasis on the civil law tradition. It will be shown that the governing paradigm in legal studies has always been the 'authority paradigm', which results in law being closer to theology than to the social sciences. Its principal actors (judges) make assertions free from the normal constraints of scientific method; accordingly, the idea of a 'legal science' (imported into the common law tradition after 1846) must be treated with great caution. It is not a science dedicated to enquiring about the nature of the physical world, society or social relations. Its epistemological development remains trapped in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries: thus, as a discipline, law has little to offer other social sciences.     

Jenseits des Tausches

This paper discusses Karl Marx’ theory as a contribution to the sociology of gift, particularly in connection with current approaches to conceptualize giving and receiving ?beyond exchange“ or reciprocity. Therefore, at first the norm of reciprocity is developed both as a structuring pattern of society and a concept of social justice, while focussing on the question of the origins of the obligation of reciprocity. Its roots are traced back genealogically to the social asymmetry produced by the gift as a performative act, which also shows the latent warlike dimension of the gift-relation. With Marx’s critique of alienation, the problematic dimension of reciprocity can be further demonstrated but also – with reference to Marx’s Auszüge aus James Mills Buch ?Élémens d’économie politique“ (1844) – contrasted with the utopia of a radical separation of gift and countergift. Finally, Marx’ contribution to the sociology of gift is summarized and compared to the approaches of Bourdieu, Derrida and Caillé.     

From ‘Tiger’ to ‘PIIGS’: Ireland and the use of heuristics in comparative political economy

This article analyses the consequences of the narrative construction of the group of countries that has been grouped as ‘PIIGS’ (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) for their sovereign debt risk rating. Acronyms for groups of countries can provide a useful shorthand to capture emergent similarities in economic profile and prospects. But they can also lead to misleading narratives, since the grounds for use of these terms as heuristic devices are usually not well elaborated. This article examines the process whereby the ‘PIIGS’ group came into being, traces how Ireland became a member of this grouping, and assesses the merits of classifying these countries together. The contention is that the repetition of the acronym in public debate did indeed shape the behaviour of market actors toward these countries. It is argued that this involved a co‐constituting process: similarities in market treatment drives PIIGS usage, which in turn promotes further similarities in market treatment. Evidence is found of Granger causality, such that increased media usage of the term ‘PIIGS’ is followed by increased changes in Irish bond yields. This demonstrates the constitutive role of perceptions and discourse in interpreting the significance of economic fundamentals. The use of acronyms as heuristics has potentially far‐reaching consequences in the financial markets.