Fostering the Autonomy of Legal Reasoning Through Legal Realism

  • Felipe Figueroa ZimmermannEmail author
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Institutions, Economics and Law book series (PSIEL)


This chapter explains why the dominant pattern of disciplinary interaction between law and economics has fostered a general trend of reducing legal reasoning to economic reasoning. After describing the pattern of interaction between both disciplines through the example of property rights (Sect. 8.2) and linking it to the debate on reductionism in philosophy of science (Sect. 8.3), the chapter proposes a strategy for salvaging the autonomy of legal reasoning by increasing reflexivity through a version of legal realism inspired by the work of Otto Neurath (Sect. 8.4).


Neoclassical economics Formalism realism Otto Neurath Logical positivism Reflexivity Interdisciplinarity Law and economics Reductionism Legal reasoning 


  1. Alexander, Gregory S. 2002. Comparing the Two Legal Realisms: American and Scandinavian. The American Journal of Comparative Law 50 (1): 131–174.
  2. Atria, Fernando. 2016. La forma del derecho. Madrid: Marcial Pons.Google Scholar
  3. Bjarup, Jes. 2005. The Philosophy of Scandinavian Legal Realism. Ratio Juris 18 (1): 1–15.
  4. Buchanan, James M., and Wm. Craig Stubblebine. 1962. Externality. Economica 29 (116): 371–384.
  5. Calabresi, Guido. 2016. The Future of Law and Economics: Essays in Reform and Recollection. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Calabresi, Guido, and A. Douglas Melamed. 1972. Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral. Harvard Law Review 85 (6): 1089–1128. Scholar
  7. Cat, Jordi. 2018. Otto Neurath. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta, Summer 2018. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  8. Commons, John R. 1924. Legal Foundations of Capitalism. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
  9. Cserne, Péter. 2020. Economic Approaches to Legal Reasoning: An Overview. In Economics in Legal Reasoning, ed. Péter Cserne and Fabrizio Esposito, 25–41. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Duxbury, Neil. 2001. Jurists and Judges: An Essay on Influence. Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart.Google Scholar
  11. Fine, Ben. 2000. Economics Imperialism and Intellectual Progress: The Present as History of Economic Thought? History of Economics Review 32 (1): 10–35. Scholar
  12. ———. 2002. Economic Imperialism: A View from the Periphery. Review of Radical Political Economics 34: 187–201.Google Scholar
  13. Fuller, Steve. 2013. Deviant Interdisciplinarity as Philosophical Practice: Prolegomena to Deep Intellectual History. Synthese 190 (11): 1899–1916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gellner, Ernest. 1968. The New Idealism—Cause and Meaning in the Social Sciences. In Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 49, 377–432. Elsevier.
  15. Gómez Pomar, Fernando. 2020. Characterizing Economic and Legal Approaches to the Regulation of Market Interactions. In Economics in Legal Reasoning, ed. Péter Cserne and Fabrizio Esposito, 63–79. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Gordon, Wendy J. 1982. Fair Use as Market Failure: A Structural and Economic Analysis of the ‘Betamax’ Case and Its Predecessors. Columbia Law Review 82 (8): 1600–1657. Scholar
  17. Grey, Thomas C. 1999. The New Formalism. Stanford Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series.
  18. Hayek, F.A. 1958. Freedom, Reason, and Tradition. Ethics 68 (4): 229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hylton, Keith. 2019. Law and Economics Versus Economic Analysis of Law. European Journal of Law and Economics 48: 77–88.
  20. Kornhauser, Lewis. 2017. The Economic Analysis of Law. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta, Fall 2017. Stanford University.
  21. Landes, William M., and Richard A. Posner. 1993. The Influence of Economics on Law: A Quantitative Study. The Journal of Law and Economics 36 (1, Part 2): 385–424.Google Scholar
  22. Lazear, Edward P. 2000. Economic Imperialism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 115 (1): 99–146.
  23. Leeson, Peter T. 2019. Do We Need Behavioral Economics to Explain Law? European Journal of Law and Economics 48 (1): 29–42.
  24. Mäki, Uskali. 2009. Economics Imperialism: Concept and Constraints. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 39 (3): 351–380. Scholar
  25. Mathis, Klaus, and Deborah Shannon. 2009. Efficiency Instead of Justice? Law and Philosophy Library, vol. 84. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  26. Merrill, Thomas W., and Henry E. Smith. 2001. What Happened to Property in Law and Economics? The Yale Law Journal 111 (2): 357–398. Scholar
  27. Netanel, Neil. 2011. Making Sense of Fair Use. Lewis & Clark Law Review 15 (3): 715–772.Google Scholar
  28. Neurath, Otto. 1983a. Sociology in the Framework of Physicalism. In Philosophical Papers, 1913–1946, ed. R. S. Cohen, Marie Neurath, and Carolyn R. Fawcett, 58–90. Vienna Circle Collection, vol. 16. Dordrecht, Holland and Boston, Hingham, MA: D. Riedel Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 1983b. Unified Science and Its Encyclopedia. In Philosophical Papers, 1913–1946, ed. R. S. Cohen, Marie Neurath, and Carolyn R. Fawcett, 172–182. Vienna Circle Collection, vol. 16. Dordrecht, Holland and Boston, Hingham, MA: D. Riedel Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  30. Nik-Khah, Edward, and Robert Van Horn. 2012. Inland Empire: Economics Imperialism as an Imperative of Chicago Neoliberalism. Journal of Economic Methodology 19 (3): 259–282. Scholar
  31. Penner, James E. 1995. The Bundle of Rights Picture of Property. UCLA Law Review 43 (3): 711–820.Google Scholar
  32. ———. 1997. The Idea of Property in Law. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Pihlajamäki, Heikki. 2004. Against Metaphysics in Law: The Historical Background of American and Scandinavian Legal Realism Compared. The American Journal of Comparative Law 52 (2): 469–487.
  34. Pildes, Richard H. 1999. Forms of Formalism. The University of Chicago Law Review 66 (3): 607–621.
  35. Reisch, George A. 1994. Planning Science: Otto Neurath and the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. The British Journal for the History of Science 27 (2): 153–175.
  36. Schauer, Frederick. 1988. Formalism. The Yale Law Journal 97 (4): 509–548.Google Scholar
  37. Schauer, Frederick F. 2009. Thinking like a Lawyer: A New Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Sigmund, Karl. 2017. Exact Thinking in Demented Times: The Vienna Circle and the Epic Quest for the Foundations of Science. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, Henry E. 2019. Complexity and the Cathedral: Making Law and Economics More Calabresian. European Journal of Law and Economics 48 (1): 43–63.
  40. Smith, Steven A. 2011. The Normativity of Private Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 31 (2): 215–242. Scholar
  41. Spaak, Torben. 2017. Realism about the Nature of Law. Ratio Juris 30 (1): 75–104.
  42. Stein, Peter. 2009. Legal Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Teles, Steven Michael. 2008. The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law. Princeton Studies in American Politics: Historical, International, and Comparative Perspectives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Waldron, Jeremy. 2000. ‘Transcendental Nonsense’ and System in the Law. Columbia Law Review 100 (1): 16–53.
  45. Weinrib, Ernest J. 2010. Legal Formalism. In A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory, ed. Dennis M. Patterson, 2nd ed., 327–339. Blackwell Companions to Philosophy 8. Chichester, West Sussex and Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  46. ———. 2012. The Idea of Private Law. Rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Zipursky, Benjamin C. 2000. Pragmatic Conceptualism. Legal Theory 6 (4): 457–485.
  48. ———. 2006. Legal Obligations and the Internal Aspect of Rules. Fordham Law Review 75 (3): 1229–1254.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations