IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sip/dpaper/04-035.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Political Economy of Law: Decision-Making by Judicial, Legislative, Executive and Administrative Agencies

Author

Listed:
  • Mat McCubbins

    (University of California, San Diego)

  • Roger Noll

    (Stanford University)

  • Barry Weingast

    (Stanford University)

Abstract

In the 1980s scholars began applying Positive Political Theory (PPT) to study public law. This chapter summarizes that body of research and its relationship to other schools of legal thought. Like Law and Economics, PPT of Law uses sequential game theory to examine how rules and procedures shape policy and evaluates these outcomes from the perspective of economic efficiency. Like the Legal Process School in traditional legal scholarship, PPT of Law focuses on how the structure and process of legislative, bureaucratic and judicial decision-making influences the law and evaluates these procedures using the principle of democratic legitimacy; however, rather than using procedural norms derived from moral and political philosophy to evaluate procedures, PPT of Law conceptualizes the decision-making procedures of government as rationally designed by elected officials to shape the policies arising from decisions by executive agencies, the courts, and future elected officials. After summarizing this theory, the essay turns to applications of this approach in administrative law and statutory interpretation.

Suggested Citation

  • Mat McCubbins & Roger Noll & Barry Weingast, 2005. "The Political Economy of Law: Decision-Making by Judicial, Legislative, Executive and Administrative Agencies," Discussion Papers 04-035, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:sip:dpaper:04-035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-siepr.stanford.edu/repec/sip/04-035.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Spiller, Pablo T., 1992. "Rationality, decision rules, and collegial courts," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 186-190, June.
    2. Weingast, Barry R & Marshall, William J, 1988. "The Industrial Organization of Congress; or, Why Legislatures, Like Firms, Are Not Organized as Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(1), pages 132-163, February.
    3. Thomas Romer & Howard Rosenthal, 1978. "Political resource allocation, controlled agendas, and the status quo," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 27-43, December.
    4. Mashaw, Jerry L, 1985. "Prodelegation: Why Administrators Should Make Political Decisions," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 81-100, Spring.
    5. Lohmann, Susanne & O'Halloran, Sharyn, 1994. "Divided government and U.S. trade policy: theory and evidence," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(04), pages 595-632, September.
    6. Kenneth Shepsle & Barry Weingast, 1981. "Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 503-519, January.
    7. McCubbins, Mathew D & Noll, Roger G & Weingast, Barry R, 1987. "Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 243-277, Fall.
    8. Spiller, Pablo T & Spitzer, Matthew L, 1992. "Judicial Choice of Legal Doctrines," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 8-46, March.
    9. Noll, Roger G & Krier, James E, 1990. "Some Implications of Cognitive Psychology for Risk Regulation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(2), pages 747-779, June.
    10. Richard A. Posner, 1974. "Theories of Economic Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 5(2), pages 335-358, Autumn.
    11. Noll, Roger., 1983. "The Political Foundations of Regulatory Policy," Working Papers 486, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
    12. McKelvey, Richard D., 1976. "Intransitivities in multidimensional voting models and some implications for agenda control," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 472-482, June.
    13. Nolan M. McCarty, 1997. "Presidential Reputation and the Veto," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(1), pages 1-26, March.
    14. repec:cup:apsrev:v:55:y:1961:i:04:p:843-850_12 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Noll, Roger G., "undated". "Breaking Out of the Regulatory Dilemma: Alternatives to the Sterile Choice," Working Papers 108, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
    16. repec:cup:apsrev:v:81:y:1987:i:01:p:85-104_19 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Steven A. Matthews, 1989. "Veto Threats: Rhetoric in a Bargaining Game," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 104(2), pages 347-369.
    18. Rasmusen, Eric & Ramseyer, J Mark, 1994. "Cheap Bribes and the Corruption Ban: A Coordination Game among Rational Legislators," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 78(3-4), pages 305-327, March.
    19. Rodriguez, Daniel B., 1992. "Statutory interpretation and political advantage," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 217-231, June.
    20. Schwartz, Edward P, 1992. "Policy, Precedent, and Power: A Positive Theory of Supreme Court Decision-Making," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 219-252, April.
    21. Weingast, Barry R & Shepsle, Kenneth A & Johnsen, Christopher, 1981. "The Political Economy of Benefits and Costs: A Neoclassical Approach to Distributive Politics," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(4), pages 642-664, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:sip:dpaper:04-035. 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: (Anne Shor). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/cestaus.html .

    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.