行为法和经济学作为试金石

P. Cserne
{"title":"行为法和经济学作为试金石","authors":"P. Cserne","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2973907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses a few meta-theoretical questions about Behavioural Law and Economics (BLE) in order to better understand both its popularity and the criticisms it has received. It argues that BLE provides a litmus test to reveal dividing lines, manifest latent tensions and polarize debates between various camps or traditions in both positive and normative (law and) economics, thus making epistemic and methodological commitments of economists more visible. These dividing lines include the methodological character of rationality assumptions, naturalistic and mentalist models of human behaviour, and the normative force and relevance of individual preferences, autonomy and objective metrics of welfare.","PeriodicalId":162065,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Law & Economics: Private Law (Topic)","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Behavioural Law and Economics As Litmus Test\",\"authors\":\"P. Cserne\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2973907\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper discusses a few meta-theoretical questions about Behavioural Law and Economics (BLE) in order to better understand both its popularity and the criticisms it has received. It argues that BLE provides a litmus test to reveal dividing lines, manifest latent tensions and polarize debates between various camps or traditions in both positive and normative (law and) economics, thus making epistemic and methodological commitments of economists more visible. These dividing lines include the methodological character of rationality assumptions, naturalistic and mentalist models of human behaviour, and the normative force and relevance of individual preferences, autonomy and objective metrics of welfare.\",\"PeriodicalId\":162065,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Law & Economics: Private Law (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Law & Economics: Private Law (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2973907\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Law & Economics: Private Law (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2973907","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

本文讨论了关于行为法律与经济学(BLE)的几个元理论问题,以便更好地理解它的流行和它所受到的批评。它认为,BLE提供了一个试金石,揭示了在实证和规范(法律和)经济学中不同阵营或传统之间的分界线,显示潜在的紧张关系和两极分化的辩论,从而使经济学家的认识论和方法论承诺更加明显。这些分界线包括理性假设的方法论特征,人类行为的自然主义和心理主义模型,以及个人偏好、自主性和客观福利指标的规范性力量和相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Behavioural Law and Economics As Litmus Test
This paper discusses a few meta-theoretical questions about Behavioural Law and Economics (BLE) in order to better understand both its popularity and the criticisms it has received. It argues that BLE provides a litmus test to reveal dividing lines, manifest latent tensions and polarize debates between various camps or traditions in both positive and normative (law and) economics, thus making epistemic and methodological commitments of economists more visible. These dividing lines include the methodological character of rationality assumptions, naturalistic and mentalist models of human behaviour, and the normative force and relevance of individual preferences, autonomy and objective metrics of welfare.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信