Journals / Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2008 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 20

Common Platform of Law and Economics-"Law and Economics" Trend

Hukuk ve Ekonominin Ortak Temelleri-'Hukuk ve Ekonomi' Akımı

Pages
161–180
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As such, in analyzing these issues, the legal economists rely mainly on the analytical logic of economic analysis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper is trying to illustrate why economic analysis is important for lawyers, judges and legal scholars, and how legal rules structure economic activity.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In many respects, the economy and the law are interdependent and synergistic.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As such, in analyzing these issues, the legal economists rely mainly on the analytical logic of economic analysis.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This paper is trying to illustrate why economic analysis is important for lawyers, judges and legal scholars, and how legal rules structure economic activity. In many respects, the economy and the law are interdependent and synergistic. This relationship is brought to light by ‘law and economics’ movement. The history of the discipline now known as “law and economics” goes back hundreds of years. Indeed, ‘law and economics’ is a success story of interdisciplinary scholarship, and the success has been attributed to the strength of economics in providing a sound behavioral theory. It is argued in this paper, however, that this is only a partial explanation, for many issues in law are not directly related to human behavior per se. As such, in analyzing these issues, the legal economists rely mainly on the analytical logic of economic analysis.

Özet

Bu makale, hukuk kuralları tarafından ekonomik aktivitelerin nasıl şekillendirildiğini ve ekonomik analizin hukuk bilimciler, yargıçlar ve hukukçular açısından niçin önemli olduğunu göstermeye çalışıyor. Birçok açıdan hukuk ve ekonomi birbiriyle bağımlı ve eş etkililik içindedir. Bu ilişki ‘hukuk ve ekonomi’ hareketi tarafından ortaya çıkarılmıştır. ‘Hukuk ve ekonomi’ disiplinin tarihi yüzyıllar öncesine kadar gider. Aslında “hukuk ve ekonomi’ disiplinler arası bilimin başarı öyküsü olup bu başarı ekonominin sağlam bir davranışsal teori oluşturmadaki gücüne atfedilir. Bu makalede ise bunun sadece kısmi bir açıklama olduğu savunulur çünkü hukuktaki pek çok problem doğrudan insan davranışının yalnızca kendisiyle ilgili değildir. Bu nedenle, söz konusu sorunları veya hukuksal uyuşmazlıkları incelerken hukuk ekonomistleri daha çok ekonomik analizin analitik mantığına itimat ederler.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜRPINAR, B. (2022). Common Platform of Law and Economics-"Law and Economics" Trend. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 20, 161–180. https://ajindex.com/articles/493483

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (20)

  1. Akad, A.S., (2006), “Hukuk ve Ahlak”, Vatan Gazetesi, 16.03.2006.
  2. Baker, J.B. (1999). “Developments in Antitrust Economics”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol: 13, No: 1, s: 181-194.
  3. Baker, J.B. (1997). “Econometric Analysis in FTC vs. Staples”, www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/stspch.htm (20.01.2007)
  4. Baker, J.B. (1996). “Contemporary Empirical Merger Analysis”, Working Paper, www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/gmu5.htm (23.12.2006)
  5. Becker, G.S. (1976). The Economic Approach to Human Behavior, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  6. Berolzheimer, F. (1968). The World’s Legal Philosophies, Reprint, South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprint. Bork, R. H. (1978). The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself, New York, Basic Books. Calabresi, G. (1970). The Cost of Accidents: A Legal and Economic Analysis, Yale University Press.
  7. Coase, R.H. (1994) Essays on Economics and Economists. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  8. Coase, R.H. (1988) The Firm, the Market, and the Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  9. Coase, R.H. (1960). “The problem of social cost”, Journal of Law and Economics, 3(1), 1-44.
  10. Cole, D.H. ve Grossman, P.Z. (2004).
  11. Principles of Law and Economics, New Jersey, Pearson-Prentice Hall. Cooke, C.A. (1937). “The Legal Content of the Profit Concept”, Yale Law Journal (46), ss: 436-437, aktarım T.E.C. Leslie, Essay in Political and Moral Philosophy, 1879, s. 404. Cooter, R.D. and Rubinfeld, D.L. (1989). “Economic analysis of legal disputes and their resolution”, Journal of Economic Literature, 27, 1067-97.
  12. Cooter, R.D. and Ulen, T. (2003). Law and Economics. 4nd ed., Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Easterbrook, F.H. (1984). The Supreme Court, 1983 Term---Foreword: the court and the economic system. Harvard Law Review, 98, 4-60.
  13. Evensky, J. (1994).
  14. Professor Malloy, Judge Posner, and Adam Smith’s moral philosophy. in Robin P. Malloy and Jerry Evensky eds., Adam Smith and the Philosophy of Law and Economics, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  15. Holmes, O.W. (1897) “The Path of the Law”, Harvard Law Review, Vol.: 10, 1897, s. 457-469.
  16. Hsiung, B., (2004) “An interpretation of Ronald Coase’s analytical approach”, History of Economics Review, 39, 12-32.
  17. İmregün, O. (1991).
  18. Kara Ticareti Hukuku Dersleri, Dokuzuncu Bası, İstanbul,
  19. Gür-ay Matbaası. Jasquemin, A. ve Schrans, G. (1970) le Droit Economique, Paris, Press Universitaires de France. Kumcu, E. (2004), “Rekabet Üzerine Çeşitlemeler”, Hürriyet Gazetesi, 30.05.2004
  20. Landes, W.M. and Posner, R.A. (1988) The E