Please cite to the original publication
My thesis is that, despite the massive attention that has been given in the literature to the economic analysis of law, the Law and Economics Movement has had little effect on the methodology by which cases are decided. Ironically, there is an economic explanation for the fact that traditional common-law reasoning continues to dominate the judicial decision-making process. The argument is simple. Economic reasoning has not replaced legal reasoning because traditional legal analysis provides a more efficient method for deciding cases than does modern economic analysis. Moreover, I will argue that traditional legal reasoning in many areas of the law is not appreciably different from economic reasoning.
Date of Authorship for this Version