IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On Legal Cooperation and the Dynamics of Legal Convergence


  • MUSY O.


In this paper, we study the dynamics of legal convergence and the comparison between the different instruments of legal convergence based on cooperative strategies (i.e., harmonization and unification) or not. To study these questions we use a model with two nation-states which is inspired in part by that used in Carbonara and Parisi (2008) where preferences of each nation-state are such that it is costly to change the law, but it is also costly to have a different legal system from the other nation-state. We show that legal unification could be achieved in the long-run through small step by step changes despite the existence of huge harmonization costs in the short run. We also show that legal cooperation is not always necessary to achieve legal convergence.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Crettez B. & Deffains B. & Musy O., 2010. "On Legal Cooperation and the Dynamics of Legal Convergence," Working Papers ERMES 1013, ERMES, University Paris 2.
  • Handle: RePEc:erm:papers:1013

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Loeper, Antoine, 2011. "Coordination in heterogeneous federal systems," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7-8), pages 900-912, August.
    2. Monheim-Helstroffer, Jenny & Obidzinski, Marie, 2010. "Optimal discretion in asylum lawmaking," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 86-97, March.
    3. Ricardo Alonso & Wouter Dessein & Niko Matouschek, 2008. "When Does Coordination Require Centralization?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 145-179, March.
    4. Bertrand Crettez & Régis Deloche, 2006. "On the unification of legal rules in the European Union," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 203-214, May.
    5. John Armour & Simon Deakin & Prabirjit Sarkar & Mathias Siems & Ajit Singh, 2007. "Shareholder Protection and Stock Market Development: An Empirical Test of the Legal Origins Hypothesis," Working Papers wp358, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    6. Nuno Garoupa & Anthony Ogus, 2006. "A Strategic Interpretation of Legal Transplants," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 35(2), pages 339-363, June.
    7. Baniak Andrzej & Grajzl Peter, 2011. "Interjurisdictional Linkages and the Scope for Interventionist Legal Harmonization," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(2), pages 405-434, December.
    8. Jean-Michel Josselin & Alain Marciano, 2002. "The economics of harmonizing European law," Post-Print halshs-00076658, HAL.
    9. Casella, Alessandra, 2001. "Product Standards and International Trade: Harmonization through Private Coalitions?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2-3), pages 243-264.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Baniak Andrzej & Grajzl Peter, 2011. "Interjurisdictional Linkages and the Scope for Interventionist Legal Harmonization," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(2), pages 405-434, December.
    2. Crettez Bertrand & Deffains Bruno & Musy Olivier, 2016. "Convergence of Legal Rules: Comparing Cooperative and Non-Cooperative Processes," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 13-35, March.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • K00 - Law and Economics - - General - - - General (including Data Sources and Description)


    Access and download statistics


    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:erm:papers:1013. 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: (). General contact details of provider: .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.