The Experts below are selected from a list of 101331 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Kai P Purnhagen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
never the twain shall meet a critical perspective on cultural limits between internal continental dogmatism and consequential us style law and economics theory
Law and Economics in Europe: Foundations and Applications Economic Analysis of Law in European Legal Scholarship 1, 2014Co-Authors: Kai P PurnhagenAbstract:Why could law and economics theory (hereinafter L&E ) develop to become the most prominent theory in US legal scholarship, while still playing only a minor role in Europe? As this article is also meant as a gloss, as “a propagandist tracet”,1 I herein make use of my academic freedom to write freely also on controversial issues. If there is a grain of truth in what I am proposing here, it might help to de-mystify L&E theory and classify it to what it to my mind, really is: one very convincing and influential theory, but only one theory out of many that might explain the law. I will argue that it is not only the persuasiveness of the theory that helped to establish the continental divide in legal thought. But that cultural reasons also contributed to a significant extent. Some of them, such as World War II, are external Social factors. Other factors, such as the influence of the Olin foundation, resulted from internal factors. As Grechenig and Gelter convincingly explain, at the beginning of the movement in the nineteenth and the early twentieth century the developments were comparable in Europe and the USA. The Nazi regime and World War II then marked a turning point, which resulted in reservations against L&E thinking. Europe responded with a renaissance of classical legal thought (hereinafter CLT ), while in the USA, the L&E theory developed further unhindered. This development, however, was not autonomous but influenced by man-made culture on both sides. Only recently, arguments from L&E are able to grasp hold in Europe. Interestingly, this development goes hand in hand with the upcoming of a new generation that has not been influenced by World War II. Furthermore, this generation benefited greatly from incentive mechanisms to grapple with American legal thinking through funding and the legal society likewise. The fall of the Berlin wall, I will argue, marks a second point in history, which brings L&E arguments to Europe and classical legal thought to the USA. I will close with a call for a specific EU-based idea of L&E , which starts from the outset as a method freed from the ideological struggles that accompanied the introduction of L&E in the USA. It shall live towards the aim of establishing both, a free and Social Market Economy.
-
never the twain shall meet a critical perspective on cultural limits between internal continental dogmatism and us style law and economics theory
Social Science Research Network, 2012Co-Authors: Kai P PurnhagenAbstract:Why could law and economics theory (hereinafter L&E) develop to become the most prominent theory in US legal scholarship, while still playing only a minor role in Europe? As this piece is also meant as a gloss, as “a propagan-dist tracet”, I herein make use of my academic freedom to write freely also on controversial issues. If there is a grain of truth in what I am proposing here, it might help to de-mystify L&E theory and classify it to what it, to my mind, really is: one very convincing and influential theory, but only one theory out of many that might explain the law. I will argue that it is not only the persuasiveness of the theory that helped to establish the continental divide in legal thought. But that cultural reasons also contributed to a significant extent. Some of them, such as World War II, are external Social factors. Other factors, such as the influence of the Olin foundation, resulted from internal factors. As Grechenig and Gelter convincingly explain, at the beginning of the movement in the 19th and the early 20th century the developments where comparable in Europe and the USA. The Nazi regime and World War II then marked a turning point, which resulted in reservations against L&E thinking. Europe responded with a renaissance of classical legal thought (hereinafter CLT), while in the USA, the L&E theory developed further unhindered. This development, however, was not autonomous but influenced by man-made culture on both sides. Only recently, arguments from L&E are able to grasp hold in Europe. Interestingly, this development goes hand in hand with the upcoming of a new generation that has not been influenced by World War II. Furthermore, this generation benefited greatly from incentive mechanisms to grapple with American legal thinking through funding and the legal society likewise. The fall of the Berlin wall, I will argue, marks a second point in history, which brings L&E arguments to Europe and classical legal thought to the USA. I will close with a call for a specific EU-based idea of L&E, which shall live towards the aim of establishing both, a free and Social Market Economy.
Dirk Sauerland - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
germany s Social Market Economy a blueprint for latin american countries
Social Science Research Network, 2015Co-Authors: Dirk SauerlandAbstract:Whereas the debate about capitalism vs. Socialism seems to have come to an end, the current discussion is more about which kind of Market Economy ensures a positive economic and Social development in a country. The ongoing economic and financial crisis fueled this discussion about successful economic systems, especially in Europe.In the light of the above discussion two different kinds of liberal institutional concepts have regained attention. Modern institutional concepts on the one hand focus primarily on the workability of competition based Market economies. Particularly economic freedom, measured in different areas, plays an important role in these liberal Market concepts.On the other hand also an old institutional concept has regained attention. It is the German ordoliberal Social Market concept which – presumably – helped Germany (and also Austria) to cope with the current crisis in an effective and humane way.Facing two different liberal institutional concepts two questions arise: Firstly, what are the differences and similarities of the two concepts? Secondly, can the ordoliberal Social Market Economy concept become an alternative to the prevailing liberal Market Economy concepts put forward by international organizations like the OECD? Can it become a blueprint for Latin American countries looking for reform options to improve the economic situation of their citizens?To answer these questions, institutional footprints of Germany and the United States are compared to those of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Turkey and Venezuela.
-
germany s Social Market Economy a blueprint for latin american countries
Wittener Diskussionspapiere zu alten und neuen Fragen der Wirtschaftswissenschaft, 2015Co-Authors: Dirk SauerlandAbstract:[Introduction ...] This paper tries to answer these questions taking five steps of argumentation. Firstly, the paper briefly sketches the theoretical and empirical background of the modern liberal Market Economy concept. Secondly, it outlines in more detail the basic ideas of the ordoliberal Social Market Economy concept and some modern amendments to this concept based on institutional economics’ ideas. Thirdly, the paper compares the two concepts and it uses institutional data to describe two prototypes of economies based on those concepts of the United States and Germany. Fourthly, the same databases are used to describe the institutional status quo in five Latin American countries. The fifth and last step of the argumentation discusses the limitations of a simple blueprint idea with regards to economic orders. The paper ends with conclusions on options and limits of taking the liberal or the Social Market Economy concept as a blueprint for Latin American countries.
Jotte Mulder - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
re conceptualising a Social Market Economy for the eu internal Market
Social Science Research Network, 2019Co-Authors: Jotte MulderAbstract:Can European law legitimately influence or contain the socio-economic orientations of the Member States towards one particular model, and to what extent should it allow or even stimulate a diversity in socio-economic outcomes? This is a fundamental question that lies at the heart of the European Union’s (EU) economic integration project. Many have argued that the concept of the ‘Social Market Economy’ could or should provide for normative guidance. This contribution reflects on the historical and current potential of the concept to provide such guidance. It proposes that the EU internal Markets socio-economic diversity should be cherished and accommodated in the legal framework of the EU through a dialogue of mutual responsiveness.
Sybe De Vries - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the Social Market Economy in a heterogeneous Social europe does it make a difference
Social Science Research Network, 2019Co-Authors: Catherine Barnard, Sybe De VriesAbstract:In this article we take managing migration and managing the gig Economy as a prism through which to examine not only whether the phrase ‘Social Market Economy’ has any real substance, but also whether it offers any guidance as to how the European Union (EU) may respond in the future. We argue that the language of ‘Social Market Economy’, a concept drafted in the halcyon days prior to the financial and migration crises, serves only to highlight the gap between rhetoric and reality. We identify two main reasons for this, namely a lack of legal competence and a lack of political will. We then consider whether the objective of attaining a ‘Social Market Economy’ can be operationalised in any way. In the light of the establishment of the European Social Pillar, we argue that it can, yet within certain limits. We conclude by arguing that the lack of clear communication by the EU, both of its successes and also of the limits on its powers, means that it receives little credit for the good it is able to do. It also unnecessarily raises expectations among the public about what it can achieve. This inevitably leads to the disappointment generated by unfulfilled expectations.
Catherine Barnard - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the Social Market Economy in a heterogeneous Social europe does it make a difference
Social Science Research Network, 2019Co-Authors: Catherine Barnard, Sybe De VriesAbstract:In this article we take managing migration and managing the gig Economy as a prism through which to examine not only whether the phrase ‘Social Market Economy’ has any real substance, but also whether it offers any guidance as to how the European Union (EU) may respond in the future. We argue that the language of ‘Social Market Economy’, a concept drafted in the halcyon days prior to the financial and migration crises, serves only to highlight the gap between rhetoric and reality. We identify two main reasons for this, namely a lack of legal competence and a lack of political will. We then consider whether the objective of attaining a ‘Social Market Economy’ can be operationalised in any way. In the light of the establishment of the European Social Pillar, we argue that it can, yet within certain limits. We conclude by arguing that the lack of clear communication by the EU, both of its successes and also of the limits on its powers, means that it receives little credit for the good it is able to do. It also unnecessarily raises expectations among the public about what it can achieve. This inevitably leads to the disappointment generated by unfulfilled expectations.