I regimi di protezione dell'impiego nelle sintesi econometriche: tre domande per avviare un dibattito
Starting from a critical appraisal of the index developed by the OECD in 1999 to rate employment protection systems, the paper indicates ways to open a fruitful dialogue between economists and lawyers, founded on a shared scientific awareness of institutional data. The paper contends that the method, scopes and bounds of comparative law are indispensable to the development of cross-country econometrics quantification of institutional data most impervious to legal scrutiny. The paper identifies then three substantial obstacles to the creation of quantifying indexes of institutional data: a) processing textual documents of the respective legal systems may provide distorted views when not set into and against its specific historical, social, cultural context. Hence, it is necessary to envisage the option of renouncing quantification whenever considerations arising from the context suggest quantification operations may prove unsound and unwise; b) the language of law used by lawmakers is a formal instrument highly distinctive from the specific language that expresses it. Thus, homonymous terms used in different countries may have divergent legal meanings, even when properly translated. Econometrics analyses should factor in this variable by renouncing quantification whenever linguistic-legal interpretation of homonymous data uncover substantial differences in meaning; c) Comparison seeks "law in action" and not "law in the books": the former reflects applied law, reality, substantial resolution, whilst the latter reflects apparent law, superstructure, and not law. In conclusion, quantitative surveys that ascribe par values where institutional data are on a par, shorn of any measure of effectiveness in the field, are unreliable.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mul:je8794:doi:10.1429/18614:y:2004:i:3:p:389-396. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ()
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.