Titulo:
Behavioral Law and Economics: A Complementary Approach to the Standard Perspective
.
Sumario:
Existe un debate sobre la relación entre las perspectivas estándar y conductual del Derecho y la Economía. Por un lado, la Economía Conductual podría ampliar la teoría económica al explicar el mundo real del Derecho, como en el caso de las estructuras jurídicas de los bienes de mérito y el altruismo. Por otro lado, es posible que la Economía Conductual no sea necesaria para explicar las estructuras jurídicas que no maximizan la riqueza, ya que la teoría económica estándar es capaz de hacerlo. No obstante, la comparación de dos enfoques científicos no tiene por qué implicar la selección de una teoría sobre la otra, sino que permite el uso de ambas de forma complementaria. Esta investigación conceptualiza el Derecho y la Economía como un prog... Ver más
Guardado en:
0122-9893
2346-2051
2023-08-30
109
134
Enrique García-Tejeda - 2023
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
| id |
metarevistapublica_uexternado_revistaderechodelestado_81_article_8957 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
ojs |
| spelling |
Behavioral Law and Economics: A Complementary Approach to the Standard Perspective Behavioral Law and Economics: A Complementary Approach to the Standard Perspective Existe un debate sobre la relación entre las perspectivas estándar y conductual del Derecho y la Economía. Por un lado, la Economía Conductual podría ampliar la teoría económica al explicar el mundo real del Derecho, como en el caso de las estructuras jurídicas de los bienes de mérito y el altruismo. Por otro lado, es posible que la Economía Conductual no sea necesaria para explicar las estructuras jurídicas que no maximizan la riqueza, ya que la teoría económica estándar es capaz de hacerlo. No obstante, la comparación de dos enfoques científicos no tiene por qué implicar la selección de una teoría sobre la otra, sino que permite el uso de ambas de forma complementaria. Esta investigación conceptualiza el Derecho y la Economía como un programa de investigación de Lakatos y analiza la relación entre la Economía Conductual del Derecho y el enfoque estándar. Los resultados revelan que, en primer lugar, el enfoque conductual explica anomalías que no son detectadas por la perspectiva estándar del Derecho y la Economía. Por tanto, el enfoque conductual no sustituye a la perspectiva estándar, sino que ambos enfoques pueden ser complementarios. En segundo lugar, estas dos teorías del Derecho y la Economía examinan aspectos diferentes, pero complementarios, de la regulación. Este artículo utiliza la regulación de las empresas de redes de transporte para ilustrar esta cuestión. There is a debate regarding the relationship between standard and behavioral perspectives of Law and Economics. On the one hand, Behavioral Economics could broaden economic theory by explaining the real world of law, as in the case of legal structures of merit goods and altruism1. On the other hand, Behavioral Economics may not be needed to explain legal structures that do not maximize wealth, since standard economic theory is well able to do so2. Nevertheless, a comparison of two scientific approaches does not necessarily have to imply selecting one theory over the other; rather, it allows the use of both theories in a complementary manner. This research conceptualizes Law and Economics as a Lakatos research programme and analyzes the relationship between Behavioral Law and Economics and the standard approach. The results reveal that, first, Behavioral Law and Economics explains anomalies that are undetected by standard Law and Economics. The behavioral approach is thus not a substitute for the standard perspective, but rather, the two approaches may be complementary. Second, these two theories of Law and Economics examine different, but complementary, aspects of regulation. This article uses the regulation of transportation network companies to illustrate this issue. García-Tejeda, Enrique Public law, economics, regulation, behavioral sciences Derecho público, economía, regulación, ciencias del comportamiento 57 Núm. 57 , Año 2023 : Septiembre-Diciembre Artículo de revista Journal article 2023-08-30T11:54:52Z 2023-08-30T11:54:52Z 2023-08-30 application/pdf text/html text/xml Departamento de Derecho Constitucional Revista Derecho del Estado 0122-9893 2346-2051 https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/view/8957 10.18601/01229893.n57.05 https://doi.org/10.18601/01229893.n57.05 spa http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 Enrique García-Tejeda - 2023 Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0. 109 134 Amir, O., & Lobel, O. “Stumble, predict, nudge: How behavioral Economics informs law and policy”. In Columbia Law Review. 2008, 2098-2137. Ariely, D., & Jones, S. Predictably irrational. New York: HarperCollins, 2008. Arrow, J. K. Methodological Individualism and Social Knowledge. In The American Economic Review, No. 84, 1994, 1-9. Bar-Gill, O.; Sunstein, C. R., & Talgam-Cohen, I. “Algorithmic Harm in Consumer Markets”. In Journal of Legal Analysis. Forthcoming, Available from https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4321763 [Accessed 7 April 2023] Becker, G. S. “Crime and punishment: An economic approach”. In The economic dimensions of crime. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1974, 14.. Becker, G. S. The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Economics Books, 1978. Bix, B.H. “Law and Economics and the role of explanation: A comment of Guido Calabresi, The Future of Law and Economics”. In European Journal of Law and Economics. No. 48, 2019, 113–123. Calabresi, G. The cost of accidents: A legal and economic analysis. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961. Calabresi, G. The future of Law and Economics: Essays in reform and recollection. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2016. Coase, R. H. The problem of social cost. In Classic papers in natural resource economics. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1960. Cooter, R., & Ulen, T. Law and Economics. Boston: Addison-Wesley, 2016. Dudley, G., Banister, D., & Schwanen, T. “The rise of Uber and regulating the disruptive innovator”. In The Political Quarterly. No. 88, 2017, 492-499. Fielbaum, A., & Tirachini, A. “The sharing economy and the job market: the case of ridehailing drivers in Chile”. In Transportation. No. 48, 2021, 2235-2261. Fischer, F. “Beyond empiricism: policy inquiry in post positivist perspective”. In Policy Studies Journal. No. 26, 1998, 129-146. Flores, O., & Rayle, L. “How cities use regulation for innovation: the case of Uber, Lyft and Sidecar in San Francisco”. In Transportation Research Procedia. No. 25, 2017, 3756-3768. Fox, N. J. “Post-positivism”. In The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2008. García-Tejeda, E. “La regulación de Uber en la Ciudad de México, la ganancia de los consumidores y el problema público de la movilidad”. In The Latin American and Iberian Journal of Law and Economics. No. 2, 2016, 39-63. García-Tejeda, E. “¿Alguien quiere una rebanada de pizza? Los sesgos cognitivos en la contratación de servicios digitales: el punto ciego de la regulación en México”. In The Latin American Law Review. No. 6, 2021, 175-194. Garoupa, N. “Behavioral economic analysis of crime: A critical review”. In European Journal of Law and Economics. No. 15, 2003, 5-15. Goletz, M., & Bahamonde-Birke, F. J. “The ride-sourcing industry: status-quo and outlook”. In Transportation Planning and Technology. No. 44, 2021, 561-576. Halbersberg, Y., & Guttel, E. “Behavioral Economics and tort law”. In The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Economics and the Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Harding, S.; Kandlikar, M., & Gulati, S. “Taxi apps, regulation, and the market for taxi journeys”. In Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. No. 88, 2016, 15-25. Hovenkamp, H, “Positivism in Law and Economics”. In California Law Review. No. 78, 1990, 815. Ip, E. C. “Debiasing regulators: the Behavioral Economics of US administrative law”. In Common Law World Review. No. 46, 2017, 171-197. Jolls, C.; Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, R. “A behavioral approach to Law and Economics”. In Stanford Law Review. No. 50, 1997, 1471-1550. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. “Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk”. In Handbook of the Fundamentals of Financial Decision Making: Part I. Singapore: World Scientific, 2013. Kahneman, D.; Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H “Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem”. In Journal of Political Economy. No. 98, 1990, 1325-1348. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. “Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias”. In Journal of Economic Perspectives, No. 5, 1991, 193-206. Knetsch, J. L. “The endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves”. In American Economic Review. No. 79, 1989, 1277-1284. Kuhn, T. S. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Lakatos, I. The methodology of scientific research programmes: Philosophical papers. Volume I. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Leeson, P. T. “Do we need Behavioral Economics to explain law?” In European Journal of Law and Economics. No. 48, 2019, 1-14. Lewinsohn-Zamir, D. “Behavioral Law and Economics of property law”. In The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Economics and the Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Marciano, A., & Battista Ramello, G. “Law, Economics and Calabresi on the future of Law and Economics”. In European Journal of Law and Economics, No. 48, 2019, 65-76. McCaffery, E. J. “Behavioral Economics and the law: tax”. In The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Economics and the Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Nissioti, E. “It takes three to tango: A behavioral analysis of the benefits of having a mediator in international disputes”. In German Law Journal. No. 23, 2022, 376-394. O’Reilly, T. “Illusory policy implications of behavioral Law & Economics”. In Marquette Law Review. No. 106, 2023, 269. Parisi, F. “Positive, normative and functional schools in law and economics”. In European Journal of Law and Economics. No. 18, 2004, 259-272. Pelzer, P.; Frenken, K., & Boon, W. “Institutional entrepreneurship in the platform economy: How Uber tried (and failed) to change the Dutch taxi law”. In Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. No. 33, 2019, 1-12. Popper, K. Conjeturas y refutaciones. Barcelona: Paidós, 1972. Posner, R. A. Economic analysis of law. Amsterdam: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 1986. Posner, R. A. “The economic approach to law”. In Texas Law Review. No. 53, 1975, 757-782. Posner, R. A., & Becker, G. “The future of law and economics”. In Review of Law & Economics. No. 10, 2014, 235-240. Puche, M. L. “Regulation of TNCs in Latin America: The case of uber regulation in Mexico City and Bogota”. In The governance of smart transportation systems. Cham: Springer, 2019. Rosenberg, A. Philosophy of science: A contemporary introduction. London: Routledge, 2016. Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. “Status quo bias in decision making”. In Journal of risk and Uncertainty, No. 1, 1988, 7-59. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press, 1995. Stigler, G. J. “The Law and Economics of public policy: A plea to the scholars”. In The Journal of Legal Studies. No. 1, 1972, 1-12. Song, S. “Rise, fall, and implications of the New York city medallion market”. In Advances in Data Mining. Applications and Theoretical Aspects: 18th Industrial Conference. No. 18, 2018, 88-103. Stojanović, A., & Silvestri, P. “The road not taken–Reading Calabresi’s “The future of Law and Economics”. In Global Jurist. No. 19, 2019, 1-8. Sunstein, C. R. Behavioral Law and Economics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Sunstein, C. R. “Listen, economists!” In The New York Review of Books. 2016. Available from: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/11/10/listen-economists/ [Accessed 7 April 2023] Thaler, R. “Toward a positive theory of consumer choice”. In Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. No. 1, 1980, 39-60. Thelen, K. “Regulating Uber: The politics of the platform economy in Europe and the United States”. In Perspectives on Politics. No. 16, 2018, 938-953. Toulmin, S. Regreso a la razón. Barcelona: Ediciones Península, 2003. Tzur, A. Uber Über regulation? Regulatory change following the emergence of new technologies in the taxi market”. In Regulation & Governance. No. 13, 2019, 340-361. Van Overtveldt, J. The Chicago School: how the University of Chicago assembled the thinkers who revolutionized Economics and business. Evanston: Agate Publishing, 2007. Van Winden, F. A., & Ash, E. “On the Behavioral Economics of crime”. In Review of Law & Economics. No. 8, 2012, 181-213. Wittgenstein, L. Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London: Humanities Press, 1974. Zamir, E., & Teichman, D. Behavioral Law and Economics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/8957/15338 https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/8957/15339 https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/8957/15340 info:eu-repo/semantics/article http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 Text Publication |
| institution |
UNIVERSIDAD EXTERNADO DE COLOMBIA |
| thumbnail |
https://nuevo.metarevistas.org/UNIVERSIDADEXTERNADODECOLOMBIA/logo.png |
| country_str |
Colombia |
| collection |
Revista Derecho del Estado |
| title |
Behavioral Law and Economics: A Complementary Approach to the Standard Perspective |
| spellingShingle |
Behavioral Law and Economics: A Complementary Approach to the Standard Perspective García-Tejeda, Enrique Public law, economics, regulation, behavioral sciences Derecho público, economía, regulación, ciencias del comportamiento |
| title_short |
Behavioral Law and Economics: A Complementary Approach to the Standard Perspective |
| title_full |
Behavioral Law and Economics: A Complementary Approach to the Standard Perspective |
| title_fullStr |
Behavioral Law and Economics: A Complementary Approach to the Standard Perspective |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Behavioral Law and Economics: A Complementary Approach to the Standard Perspective |
| title_sort |
behavioral law and economics: a complementary approach to the standard perspective |
| title_eng |
Behavioral Law and Economics: A Complementary Approach to the Standard Perspective |
| description |
Existe un debate sobre la relación entre las perspectivas estándar y conductual del Derecho y la Economía. Por un lado, la Economía Conductual podría ampliar la teoría económica al explicar el mundo real del Derecho, como en el caso de las estructuras jurídicas de los bienes de mérito y el altruismo. Por otro lado, es posible que la Economía Conductual no sea necesaria para explicar las estructuras jurídicas que no maximizan la riqueza, ya que la teoría económica estándar es capaz de hacerlo. No obstante, la comparación de dos enfoques científicos no tiene por qué implicar la selección de una teoría sobre la otra, sino que permite el uso de ambas de forma complementaria. Esta investigación conceptualiza el Derecho y la Economía como un programa de investigación de Lakatos y analiza la relación entre la Economía Conductual del Derecho y el enfoque estándar. Los resultados revelan que, en primer lugar, el enfoque conductual explica anomalías que no son detectadas por la perspectiva estándar del Derecho y la Economía. Por tanto, el enfoque conductual no sustituye a la perspectiva estándar, sino que ambos enfoques pueden ser complementarios. En segundo lugar, estas dos teorías del Derecho y la Economía examinan aspectos diferentes, pero complementarios, de la regulación. Este artículo utiliza la regulación de las empresas de redes de transporte para ilustrar esta cuestión.
|
| description_eng |
There is a debate regarding the relationship between standard and behavioral perspectives of Law and Economics. On the one hand, Behavioral Economics could broaden economic theory by explaining the real world of law, as in the case of legal structures of merit goods and altruism1. On the other hand, Behavioral Economics may not be needed to explain legal structures that do not maximize wealth, since standard economic theory is well able to do so2. Nevertheless, a comparison of two scientific approaches does not necessarily have to imply selecting one theory over the other; rather, it allows the use of both theories in a complementary manner. This research conceptualizes Law and Economics as a Lakatos research programme and analyzes the relationship between Behavioral Law and Economics and the standard approach. The results reveal that, first, Behavioral Law and Economics explains anomalies that are undetected by standard Law and Economics. The behavioral approach is thus not a substitute for the standard perspective, but rather, the two approaches may be complementary. Second, these two theories of Law and Economics examine different, but complementary, aspects of regulation. This article uses the regulation of transportation network companies to illustrate this issue.
|
| author |
García-Tejeda, Enrique |
| author_facet |
García-Tejeda, Enrique |
| topic |
Public law, economics, regulation, behavioral sciences Derecho público, economía, regulación, ciencias del comportamiento |
| topic_facet |
Public law, economics, regulation, behavioral sciences Derecho público, economía, regulación, ciencias del comportamiento |
| topicspa_str_mv |
Derecho público, economía, regulación, ciencias del comportamiento |
| citationissue |
57 |
| citationedition |
Núm. 57 , Año 2023 : Septiembre-Diciembre |
| publisher |
Departamento de Derecho Constitucional |
| ispartofjournal |
Revista Derecho del Estado |
| source |
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/view/8957 |
| language |
spa |
| format |
Article |
| rights |
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 Enrique García-Tejeda - 2023 Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0. info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 |
| references |
Amir, O., & Lobel, O. “Stumble, predict, nudge: How behavioral Economics informs law and policy”. In Columbia Law Review. 2008, 2098-2137. Ariely, D., & Jones, S. Predictably irrational. New York: HarperCollins, 2008. Arrow, J. K. Methodological Individualism and Social Knowledge. In The American Economic Review, No. 84, 1994, 1-9. Bar-Gill, O.; Sunstein, C. R., & Talgam-Cohen, I. “Algorithmic Harm in Consumer Markets”. In Journal of Legal Analysis. Forthcoming, Available from https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4321763 [Accessed 7 April 2023] Becker, G. S. “Crime and punishment: An economic approach”. In The economic dimensions of crime. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1974, 14.. Becker, G. S. The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Economics Books, 1978. Bix, B.H. “Law and Economics and the role of explanation: A comment of Guido Calabresi, The Future of Law and Economics”. In European Journal of Law and Economics. No. 48, 2019, 113–123. Calabresi, G. The cost of accidents: A legal and economic analysis. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961. Calabresi, G. The future of Law and Economics: Essays in reform and recollection. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2016. Coase, R. H. The problem of social cost. In Classic papers in natural resource economics. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1960. Cooter, R., & Ulen, T. Law and Economics. Boston: Addison-Wesley, 2016. Dudley, G., Banister, D., & Schwanen, T. “The rise of Uber and regulating the disruptive innovator”. In The Political Quarterly. No. 88, 2017, 492-499. Fielbaum, A., & Tirachini, A. “The sharing economy and the job market: the case of ridehailing drivers in Chile”. In Transportation. No. 48, 2021, 2235-2261. Fischer, F. “Beyond empiricism: policy inquiry in post positivist perspective”. In Policy Studies Journal. No. 26, 1998, 129-146. Flores, O., & Rayle, L. “How cities use regulation for innovation: the case of Uber, Lyft and Sidecar in San Francisco”. In Transportation Research Procedia. No. 25, 2017, 3756-3768. Fox, N. J. “Post-positivism”. In The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2008. García-Tejeda, E. “La regulación de Uber en la Ciudad de México, la ganancia de los consumidores y el problema público de la movilidad”. In The Latin American and Iberian Journal of Law and Economics. No. 2, 2016, 39-63. García-Tejeda, E. “¿Alguien quiere una rebanada de pizza? Los sesgos cognitivos en la contratación de servicios digitales: el punto ciego de la regulación en México”. In The Latin American Law Review. No. 6, 2021, 175-194. Garoupa, N. “Behavioral economic analysis of crime: A critical review”. In European Journal of Law and Economics. No. 15, 2003, 5-15. Goletz, M., & Bahamonde-Birke, F. J. “The ride-sourcing industry: status-quo and outlook”. In Transportation Planning and Technology. No. 44, 2021, 561-576. Halbersberg, Y., & Guttel, E. “Behavioral Economics and tort law”. In The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Economics and the Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Harding, S.; Kandlikar, M., & Gulati, S. “Taxi apps, regulation, and the market for taxi journeys”. In Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. No. 88, 2016, 15-25. Hovenkamp, H, “Positivism in Law and Economics”. In California Law Review. No. 78, 1990, 815. Ip, E. C. “Debiasing regulators: the Behavioral Economics of US administrative law”. In Common Law World Review. No. 46, 2017, 171-197. Jolls, C.; Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, R. “A behavioral approach to Law and Economics”. In Stanford Law Review. No. 50, 1997, 1471-1550. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. “Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk”. In Handbook of the Fundamentals of Financial Decision Making: Part I. Singapore: World Scientific, 2013. Kahneman, D.; Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H “Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem”. In Journal of Political Economy. No. 98, 1990, 1325-1348. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. “Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias”. In Journal of Economic Perspectives, No. 5, 1991, 193-206. Knetsch, J. L. “The endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves”. In American Economic Review. No. 79, 1989, 1277-1284. Kuhn, T. S. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Lakatos, I. The methodology of scientific research programmes: Philosophical papers. Volume I. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Leeson, P. T. “Do we need Behavioral Economics to explain law?” In European Journal of Law and Economics. No. 48, 2019, 1-14. Lewinsohn-Zamir, D. “Behavioral Law and Economics of property law”. In The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Economics and the Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Marciano, A., & Battista Ramello, G. “Law, Economics and Calabresi on the future of Law and Economics”. In European Journal of Law and Economics, No. 48, 2019, 65-76. McCaffery, E. J. “Behavioral Economics and the law: tax”. In The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Economics and the Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Nissioti, E. “It takes three to tango: A behavioral analysis of the benefits of having a mediator in international disputes”. In German Law Journal. No. 23, 2022, 376-394. O’Reilly, T. “Illusory policy implications of behavioral Law & Economics”. In Marquette Law Review. No. 106, 2023, 269. Parisi, F. “Positive, normative and functional schools in law and economics”. In European Journal of Law and Economics. No. 18, 2004, 259-272. Pelzer, P.; Frenken, K., & Boon, W. “Institutional entrepreneurship in the platform economy: How Uber tried (and failed) to change the Dutch taxi law”. In Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. No. 33, 2019, 1-12. Popper, K. Conjeturas y refutaciones. Barcelona: Paidós, 1972. Posner, R. A. Economic analysis of law. Amsterdam: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 1986. Posner, R. A. “The economic approach to law”. In Texas Law Review. No. 53, 1975, 757-782. Posner, R. A., & Becker, G. “The future of law and economics”. In Review of Law & Economics. No. 10, 2014, 235-240. Puche, M. L. “Regulation of TNCs in Latin America: The case of uber regulation in Mexico City and Bogota”. In The governance of smart transportation systems. Cham: Springer, 2019. Rosenberg, A. Philosophy of science: A contemporary introduction. London: Routledge, 2016. Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. “Status quo bias in decision making”. In Journal of risk and Uncertainty, No. 1, 1988, 7-59. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press, 1995. Stigler, G. J. “The Law and Economics of public policy: A plea to the scholars”. In The Journal of Legal Studies. No. 1, 1972, 1-12. Song, S. “Rise, fall, and implications of the New York city medallion market”. In Advances in Data Mining. Applications and Theoretical Aspects: 18th Industrial Conference. No. 18, 2018, 88-103. Stojanović, A., & Silvestri, P. “The road not taken–Reading Calabresi’s “The future of Law and Economics”. In Global Jurist. No. 19, 2019, 1-8. Sunstein, C. R. Behavioral Law and Economics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Sunstein, C. R. “Listen, economists!” In The New York Review of Books. 2016. Available from: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/11/10/listen-economists/ [Accessed 7 April 2023] Thaler, R. “Toward a positive theory of consumer choice”. In Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. No. 1, 1980, 39-60. Thelen, K. “Regulating Uber: The politics of the platform economy in Europe and the United States”. In Perspectives on Politics. No. 16, 2018, 938-953. Toulmin, S. Regreso a la razón. Barcelona: Ediciones Península, 2003. Tzur, A. Uber Über regulation? Regulatory change following the emergence of new technologies in the taxi market”. In Regulation & Governance. No. 13, 2019, 340-361. Van Overtveldt, J. The Chicago School: how the University of Chicago assembled the thinkers who revolutionized Economics and business. Evanston: Agate Publishing, 2007. Van Winden, F. A., & Ash, E. “On the Behavioral Economics of crime”. In Review of Law & Economics. No. 8, 2012, 181-213. Wittgenstein, L. Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London: Humanities Press, 1974. Zamir, E., & Teichman, D. Behavioral Law and Economics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. |
| type_driver |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| type_coar |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 |
| type_version |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| type_coarversion |
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 |
| type_content |
Text |
| publishDate |
2023-08-30 |
| date_accessioned |
2023-08-30T11:54:52Z |
| date_available |
2023-08-30T11:54:52Z |
| url |
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/view/8957 |
| url_doi |
https://doi.org/10.18601/01229893.n57.05 |
| issn |
0122-9893 |
| eissn |
2346-2051 |
| doi |
10.18601/01229893.n57.05 |
| citationstartpage |
109 |
| citationendpage |
134 |
| url2_str_mv |
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/8957/15338 |
| url3_str_mv |
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/8957/15339 |
| url4_str_mv |
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/8957/15340 |
| _version_ |
1811199924204732416 |