Do Lawyers Need Economists? Review of Katja Langenbucher, Economic Transplants: On Lawmaking for Corporations and Capital Markets (Cambridge U. Press, 2017)

Pub Date : 2020-09-04 DOI:10.1515/ael-2020-0018
R. Avi-Yonah
{"title":"Do Lawyers Need Economists? Review of Katja Langenbucher, Economic Transplants: On Lawmaking for Corporations and Capital Markets (Cambridge U. Press, 2017)","authors":"R. Avi-Yonah","doi":"10.1515/ael-2020-0018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Katja Langenbucher’s outstanding book seeks to address the question of why and in what ways have lawyers been importing economic theories into a legal environment, and how has this shaped scholarly research, judicial and legislative work? Since the financial crisis, corporate or capital markets law has been the focus of attention by academia and media. Formal modelling has been used to describe how capital markets work and, later, has been criticized for its abstract assumptions. Empirical legal studies and regulatory impact assessments offered different ways forward. This excellent book presents a new approach to the risks and benefits of interdisciplinary policy work. The benefits economic theory brings for reliable and tested lawmaking are contrasted with important challenges including the significant differences of research methodology, leading to misunderstandings and problems of efficient implementation of economic theory’s findings into the legal world. Katja Langenbucher’s innovative research scrutinizes the potential of economic theory to European legislators faced with a lack of democratic accountability.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2020-0018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Katja Langenbucher’s outstanding book seeks to address the question of why and in what ways have lawyers been importing economic theories into a legal environment, and how has this shaped scholarly research, judicial and legislative work? Since the financial crisis, corporate or capital markets law has been the focus of attention by academia and media. Formal modelling has been used to describe how capital markets work and, later, has been criticized for its abstract assumptions. Empirical legal studies and regulatory impact assessments offered different ways forward. This excellent book presents a new approach to the risks and benefits of interdisciplinary policy work. The benefits economic theory brings for reliable and tested lawmaking are contrasted with important challenges including the significant differences of research methodology, leading to misunderstandings and problems of efficient implementation of economic theory’s findings into the legal world. Katja Langenbucher’s innovative research scrutinizes the potential of economic theory to European legislators faced with a lack of democratic accountability.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
律师需要经济学家吗?《经济移植:论公司和资本市场的立法》(剑桥大学出版社,2017)
Katja Langenbucher的杰出著作试图解决律师为什么以及以何种方式将经济理论引入法律环境的问题,以及这如何影响学术研究、司法和立法工作?自金融危机以来,公司法或资本市场法一直是学术界和媒体关注的焦点。正式的模型被用来描述资本市场是如何运作的,后来又因其抽象的假设而受到批评。实证法律研究和监管影响评估提供了不同的前进方向。这本优秀的书提出了跨学科政策工作的风险和收益的新方法。经济理论为可靠和经过检验的立法带来的好处与研究方法的显著差异等重大挑战形成对比,导致了对经济理论成果在法律界有效实施的误解和问题。Katja Langenbucher的创新研究仔细审视了经济理论对面临缺乏民主问责制的欧洲立法者的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1