English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article strengthens Calabresi’s call for a bilateral relationship between law and economics with two claims. The first claim is that the fitness analysis of Law and Economics (“concept-based fitness”) requires studying legal reasons and reasoning. This is a remarkable difference with the fitness analysis performed by the Economic Analysis of Law (“effect-based fitness”). Accordingly, Law and Economics and Economic Analysis of Law differ at the fitness stage already. The second claim is that Sunstein’s research on minimalism resonates well with Calabresi’s project although Sunstein has failed to acknowledge this in his book review. The article concludes with a discussion of how a minimalist approach contributes to a bilateral relationship between economics and law.

On the Fitness between Law and Economics—Or Sunstein between Posner and Calabresi