比较法与经济学中的地图与疆域

Q2 Social Sciences Global Journal of Comparative Law Pub Date : 2022-03-23 DOI:10.1163/2211906x-11010001
Ernesto Vargas Weil
{"title":"比较法与经济学中的地图与疆域","authors":"Ernesto Vargas Weil","doi":"10.1163/2211906x-11010001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper argues that developing more reliable methodological foundations for Comparative Law requires us to acknowledge the virtues and limitations of well-designed simplification in successfully accounting for the complexity of legal reality. If the researcher is aware of its limitations, Law & Economics is well suited to providing analytical frameworks that increase our ability to compare real-life legal institutions by reducing the complexity of the law in action. Relying on some underexplored elements of New Institutional Economics and recent developments in Comparative Law and in Law & Economics, it presents a pathway to overcome the main methodological pitfall of a joint approach. For this purpose, it analyses the problems of the functional method, traces how Law & Economics was brought into Comparative Law, discusses the main methodological advantages and pitfalls of combining both disciplines and proposes concrete forms to make use of such advantages, while avoiding the pitfalls.","PeriodicalId":38000,"journal":{"name":"Global Journal of Comparative Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Map and Territory in Comparative Law and Economics\",\"authors\":\"Ernesto Vargas Weil\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/2211906x-11010001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This paper argues that developing more reliable methodological foundations for Comparative Law requires us to acknowledge the virtues and limitations of well-designed simplification in successfully accounting for the complexity of legal reality. If the researcher is aware of its limitations, Law & Economics is well suited to providing analytical frameworks that increase our ability to compare real-life legal institutions by reducing the complexity of the law in action. Relying on some underexplored elements of New Institutional Economics and recent developments in Comparative Law and in Law & Economics, it presents a pathway to overcome the main methodological pitfall of a joint approach. For this purpose, it analyses the problems of the functional method, traces how Law & Economics was brought into Comparative Law, discusses the main methodological advantages and pitfalls of combining both disciplines and proposes concrete forms to make use of such advantages, while avoiding the pitfalls.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Journal of Comparative Law\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Journal of Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/2211906x-11010001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2211906x-11010001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文认为,为比较法建立更可靠的方法论基础,需要我们认识到精心设计的简化在成功解释法律现实复杂性方面的优点和局限性。如果研究人员意识到其局限性,《法律与经济学》非常适合提供分析框架,通过降低法律的复杂性来提高我们比较现实法律制度的能力。它依靠新制度经济学中一些未被充分探索的元素,以及比较法和法律经济学的最新发展,为克服联合方法的主要方法陷阱提供了一条途径。为此,它分析了功能方法的问题,追溯了法经济学是如何被纳入比较法的,讨论了将两个学科结合的主要方法优势和陷阱,并提出了在避免陷阱的同时利用这些优势的具体形式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Map and Territory in Comparative Law and Economics
This paper argues that developing more reliable methodological foundations for Comparative Law requires us to acknowledge the virtues and limitations of well-designed simplification in successfully accounting for the complexity of legal reality. If the researcher is aware of its limitations, Law & Economics is well suited to providing analytical frameworks that increase our ability to compare real-life legal institutions by reducing the complexity of the law in action. Relying on some underexplored elements of New Institutional Economics and recent developments in Comparative Law and in Law & Economics, it presents a pathway to overcome the main methodological pitfall of a joint approach. For this purpose, it analyses the problems of the functional method, traces how Law & Economics was brought into Comparative Law, discusses the main methodological advantages and pitfalls of combining both disciplines and proposes concrete forms to make use of such advantages, while avoiding the pitfalls.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Global Journal of Comparative Law
Global Journal of Comparative Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The Global Journal of Comparative Law is a peer reviewed periodical that provides a dynamic platform for the dissemination of ideas on comparative law and reports on developments in the field of comparative law from all parts of the world. In our contemporary globalized world, it is almost impossible to isolate developments in the law in one jurisdiction or society from another. At the same time, what is traditionally called comparative law is increasingly subsumed under aspects of International Law. The Global Journal of Comparative Law therefore aims to maintain the discipline of comparative legal studies as vigorous and dynamic by deepening the space for comparative work in its transnational context.
期刊最新文献
Access to Public Documents and Its Restrictions: a Reflection from the Perspectives of Brazil and Sweden Comparative Study of Selected Nigerian and Indian Labour Practices and the Law The Irony in the Lineage of Modern Chinese Constitutions and Constitutionalism Regulating Surrogacy as a Reproductive Practice in India and Sri Lanka Use of Specialized Tribunals for the Settlement of Construction Projects in Times of a Financial Crisis
×
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