Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T00:40:44.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Family Gatherings and a Dirty Little Secret of the Law and Society Association

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Whenever I attend a Law and Society Association function, I get the image of a family gathering. Whether it is the annual meeting, or a “birthday” celebration such as this symposium commemorating the 25th anniversary of Marc Galanter's classic work “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead” (Galanter 1974), the occasions always take on an air of kinship, with people engaging their academic forebears, siblings, and progeny in discussions about their latest projects. Although the family embraces many diverse lineages, clearly the black sheep of the family are the economists. The few brave economists who dare to attend can usually be found off in a group, amusing themselves with some recent empirical work or the latest development in game theory. In presenting our work on panels, we are often (but not always) met with polite silence or with questions asking us to defend some part of Richard Posner's work, even if our own work is critical of the traditional economic analysis of law. Occasionally at one of these family gatherings, someone even presents a paper that suggests it might be dangerous to associate with economists (Rostain 1998).

Type
Comments
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 33 , Issue 4: Do the “Haves” Still Come Out Ahead? , 1999 , pp. 1081 - 1087
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the Law and Society Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank the organizers of this symposium for inviting me to comment on the presented papers. I would also like to thank Jeffrey Stake and Lynne Henderson for comments on this comment.

References

Albiston, Catherine (1999) “The Rule of Law and the Litigation Process: The Paradox of Losing by Winning,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 869–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres, Ian, & Gertner, Robert (1989) “Filling Gaps in Incomplete Contracts: An Economic Theory of Contract Default Rules,” 99 Yale Law J. 87–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabresi, Guido (1970) The Costs of Accidents: A Legal and Economic Analysis. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Cooter, Robert (1982) “The Cost of Coase,” 11 J. of Legal Studies 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dau-Schmidt, Kenneth G. (1990) “An Economic Analysis of the Criminal Law as a Preference-Shaping Policy,” Duke Law J. 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dau-Schmidt, Kenneth G. (1992) “A Bargaining Analysis of American Labor Law and the Search for Bargaining Equity and Industrial Peace,” 91 Michigan Law Rev. 419–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dau-Schmidt, Kenneth G. (1997) “Economics and Sociology: The Prospects for an Interdisciplinary Discourse on Law,” Wisconsin Law Rev. 389.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., & Suchman, Mark C. (1999) “When the ‘Haves’ Hold Court: Speculations on the Internalization of Law,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 941–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewick, Patricia, & Silbey, Susan S. (1999) “Common Knowledge and Ideological Critique: The Significance of Knowing That the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 1025–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farole, Donald J. Jr. (1999) “Reexamining Litigant Success in State Supreme Courts,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 1043–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galanter, Marc (1974) “Why The ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change,” 9 Law & Society Review 95–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galanter, Marc (1987) “Conceptualizing Legal Change and Its Effects: A Comment on George Priest's ‘Measuring Legal Change,”‘ 3 J. of Law, Economics, & Organization 235–41.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc (1988) “The Quality of Settlements,” J. of Dispute Resolution 55–84.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc (1996) “Real World Torts: An Antidote to Anecdote,” 55 Maryland Law Rev. 1093–1160.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc, & Palay, Thomas (1990) “Why the Big Get Bigger: The Promotion-to-Partner Tournament and the Growth of Large Firms,” 76 Virginia Law Rev. 747–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galanter, Marc (1991) Tournament of Lawyers: The Transformation of the Big Law Firm. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc (1993) “Let Firms Buy and Sell Credit for Pro Bono,” 16(1) National Law J. 17.Google Scholar
Harris, Beth (1999) “Representing Homeless Families: Repeat Player Implementation Strategies,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 911–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendley, Kathryn, Murrell, Peter, & Ryterman, Randi (1999) “Do Repeat Players Behave Differently in Russia? Contractual and Litigation Behavior of Russian Enterprises,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 833–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurst, James Willard (1964) Law and Economic Growth: The Legal History of the Lumber Industry in Wisconsin. Cambridge: Belknap Press of the Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Kinsey, Karyl A., & Stalans, Loretta J. (1999) “Which ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead and Why? Cultural Capital and Legal Mobilization in Frontline Law Enforcement,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 993–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rostain, Tanina (1998) “The Dangerous Liaison between Law and Society and Law and Economics.” Presented at a symposium “Do the ‘Haves’ Still Come Out Ahead? Twenty-Five Years Later,” Institute of Legal Studies, Univ. of Wisconsin Law School, 1-2 May.Google Scholar
Tversky, Amos, & Kahneman, Daniel (1986) “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions,” 59 J. of Business S251-79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., Sheehan, Reginald S., & Haire, Susan Brodie (1999) “Do the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead over Time? Applying Galanter's Framework to the Decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 1925–1988,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 811–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar