Comparing & Contrasting Economic and Natural Law Approaches to Policymaking

Abstract

Eric Claeys’s monograph, Natural Property Rights, offers a comprehensive and thoughtful articulation of a general theory of property rights rooted in the natural law tradition. This detailed review compares Claeys’s work with the consequentialist law and economics perspective on property. After contrasting their objectives, assumptions, and methodologies this article concludes that, unlike more absolutist approaches, Claeys’s flavor of natural property rights places a modicum of weight on the welfare effects central to economic analysis. This restrained nod in the direction of practicality, however, does not eliminate some of the long-known weaknesses of natural law. Perhaps the most glaring gap in Claeys’s book is its failure to acknowledge and analyze the modern law of nuisance with its enriched set of remedies capable of making everyone a winner. At a macro level, Claeys (like most other natural law theorists) offers no substantive case against redistribution as an optimal method for addressing the fact that charity is a public good. The book, again in keeping with the natural law tradition, eschews any serious empiricism—indeed not a single argument it makes contains any empirical support. This is a fatal flaw for anyone with the ambition to offer practical advice on tougher property law issues for which the right answers depend on myriad social parameters whose values lie beyond the reach of deduction.