Public Law Perspectives on a Private Law Problem: Auto Compensation Plans

The Law: “Something He and His People Naturally Would Be Drawn To”: The Reagan Administration and the Law‐and‐Economics Movement

“…But most law teachers were unfamiliar with economic analysis and skeptical about its relevance to law” (Gellhorn and Robinson , 247). Even at the University of Chicago there was scholarly resistance against the law‐and‐economics movement, including among law professors who were interested in economic research (Blum and Kalven ; Marciano and Medema ). At many law schools outside of Chicago, law‐and‐economics was either nonexistent or was met with puzzlement—the new “‘lunatic fringe’ in American academic legal circles” (Duxbury , 345, 380).…”

Disciplinary Collisions: Blum, Kalven, and the Economic Analysis of Accident Law at Chicago in the 1960s

“…Or is the point simply that as price goes up, demand goes down; and that people with variable costs will try to reduce these costs?" 30 This, of course, led them to question the deterrence thesis that was at the heart of Calabresi's economic analysis of accident law, but their concerns were much larger than this, going to the issue of whether the economist's contention that the basic behavioral assumptions and the conclusions drawn from them translate outside of the traditional economic realm had any substance. At a minimum, Blum and Kalven questioned the economist's willingness to make such a leap without having done the sort of empirical work necessary to ground these conclusions.…”

“…31 These concerns led directly to Blum and Kalven's second argument against economics: Absent such empirical evidence, they were not willing to walk down the behavioral road with the economist, at least when it came to matters related to automobile accidents. In particular, Blum 30 Document 5, p. 3. 31 See also Document 11, p. 2;Document 16, p. 1;and Document 18, February 4, 1966, p. 1.…”