IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/hid/journl/v23y201538p167-194.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Posnerian Economic Analysis of Law and Kelsenian Legal Positivism: How Similar are They?

Author

Listed:
  • Elisabeth Krecke

    (Aix Marseille University - Faculté d’Economie et de Gestion)

Abstract

At first sight, everything seems to oppose Posner’s economic approach to law and Kelsen’s positivistic jurisprudence. Yet, in a text confronting Kelsen’s "Pure Theory of Law" to the EAL, Posner evokes an eventual epistemological compatibility, arguing that Kelsen’s perspective «opens a space for economics in law». Discussing the divergences and continuities of the two frameworks in the light of Posner’s original reading of Kelsen, this paper attempts to explore a series of epistemological facets of the EAL that are mostly overlooked in the literature. The point is to show that Posner’s intriguing remark on Kelsen creates scope for unexpected interpretations as to the specific (largely implicit) assumptions in mainstream Law and Economics with respect to fundamental issues such as nature, form, scope or goal of law – making clear that when it comes to the methodology of this theory, nothing really is as it seems.

Suggested Citation

  • Elisabeth Krecke, 2015. "Posnerian Economic Analysis of Law and Kelsenian Legal Positivism: How Similar are They?," History of Economic Ideas, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa - Roma, vol. 23(3), pages 167-194.
    • Handle: RePEc:hid:journl:v:23:y:2015:3:8:p:167-194
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.libraweb.net/articoli.php?chiave=201506103&rivista=61
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Magdalena Małecka, 2017. "Posner versus Kelsen: the challenges for scientific analysis of law," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 495-516, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hid:journl:v:23:y:2015:3:8:p:167-194. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Mario Aldo Cedrini (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.libraweb.net .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.