Pragmatismo em filosofia, realismo em direito e o duplo assalto à economia política clássica: as bases do First Law and Economics Movement na Progressive Era Americana (1880-1930)

Copetti Neto, Alfredo

doi:10.5007/2177-7055.2012v33n65p209

Resumos

O presente ensaio visa discorrer sobre o chamado First Law and Economics Movement, vinculado à Progressive Era Americana, cuja concepção possibilitou uma ruptura paradigmática na prática jurídica dos Estados Unidos. Juristas e economistas se uniram para desvendar, por um lado, as posições nitidamente economicistas assumidas pela Suprema Corte Americana no início do século XX, fundadas na economia do laissez-faire e justificadas, contrário senso, como meramente formalistas; por outro, buscaram propor a interação de ambas as disciplinas (direito e economia) para potencializar a consideração dos aspectos histórico-sociais das decisões judiciais e, com isso, abrir vista à discussão acerca da possibilidade de se redefinir os fundamentos econômicos do bem-estar geral da sociedade. Nesse sentido, enaltece- se, por consequência, a existência de um movimento econômico do (ao) direito de cunho progressista e nitidamente anterior aquele iniciado na década de 60 do século XX pela University of Chicago.

First Law and Economics Movement; Progressive Era; Substantive Due Process

This essay aims to discuss the so- -called First Law and Economics Movement, linked to the American Progressive Era, whose design allowed a paradigmatic rupture in the american legal practice. Lawyers and economists have joined together to unravel by one hand, the positions assumed by the distinctly economistic U.S. Supreme Court in the early twentieth century, based on laissez-faire and justified, contrary sense, as mere formalists; on the other hand, sought to propose interaction of both disciplines (law and economics) to enhance the consideration of historical and social aspects of judicial decisions and, therefore, open for the discussion of the possibility of redefining the economic fundamentals of the general welfare of society. In this sense, it welcomes, therefore, the existence of an economic movement of the law, linked with the progressists and clearly earlier from that started in the 60s of the twentieth century by the University of Chicago.

First Law and Economics Movement; Progressive Era; Substantive Due Process

ACKERMAN, Bruce. Nós, o povo soberano: fundamentos do direito constitucional. Belo Horizonte: Del Rey, 2006.
ARROW, Kenneth J. A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare. The Journal of Political Economy, Chicago (US), v. 58, n. 4, 1950.
BEARD, Charles A. An economic interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. New York: Free Press, 1986.
COASE, Ronald H. The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics, Chicago (US), v. 1, n. 1, October, 1960.
COHEN, Felix. Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach. Columbia Law Review Columbia (US), v. 6, n. 35, 1935.
COMMONS, John. Institutional economics New York: McMillan, 1934.
______. Law and Economics. Yale Law Journal, Yale (US), n. 34, February, 1925.
DARWIN, Charles. The origin of species Oxford - New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
DUXBURY, Neil. Patterns of American jurisprudence New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
FRIED, Barbara H. The progressive assault on laissez faire: Robert Hale and the first Law and Economics movement. 2. ed. USA: Harvard University Press, 2001.
GILMORE, Grant. Le grandi epoche del diritto americano Milano: Giufrè, 1991.
HALE, Robert. Our Equivocal Constitutional Guaranties. Columbia Law Review, Columbia (US), n. 39, 1939.
______. Force and the State: A comparison of "Political" and "Economic" Compulsion. Columbia Law Review, Columbia (US), n. 35, 1935.
______. Coercion and Distribution in a supposedly Noncoercive State. Political Science Quarterly, New York (US), n. 38, 1923.
GREY, Thomas C. Langdell's Orthodoxy. University of Pittsburgh Law Review. Pittsburgh (US), v. 1, n. 45, 1983.
HICKS, John. The Foundations of welfare Economics. The Economic Journal, Wiley (US), December, 1939.
HOLMES JUNIOR, Oliver Wendell. The essential Holmes Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1992.
HOLMES JUNIOR, Oliver Wendell. The common law New York: Dover, 1991.
HORWITZ, Morton. The transformation of american law, 1870-1960: the crisis of legal ortodoxy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
HOVENKAMP, Herbert. Knowledge About Welfare: Legal Realism and the Separation of Law and Economics. Minnesota Law Review, Minnesota, v. 84, 2000.
______. Enterprise and American Law 1836-1937 USA: Harvard University Press, 1991.
______. The First Great Law & Economics Movement. Stanford Law Review, Stanford, n. 42, 1990.
______. The Mind and Heart of Progressive Legal Thought [2011]. Disponível em: <http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/preslectures/hovenkamp95/hovenkamp1.html>. Acesso em: 1º mar. 2011.
HUERTA DE SOTO, Jesús. Escola austríaca: mercado e criatividade empresarial. Lisboa: Causa Liberal, 2005.
KALDOR, Nicholas. Welfare Propositions in Economics and Interpersonal Comparison of Utility. The Economic Journal, Wiley (US), September, 1939.
MACPHPERSON, C. B. The political theory of possessive individualism: Hobbes to Locke. 8. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979.
MILL, John Stuart. The principles of political economy with some of their applications to social philosophy. School of Economics, Finance and Management - University of Bristol. [2011]. Disponível em: <http://www.ecn.bris.ac.uk/het/mill/prin.htm>. Acesso em: 1º mar. 2011.
MINDA, Gary. Teorie posmoderne del diritto Bologna: Mulino, 2001.
NELSON, Willian E. The Fourteenth Amendment: from political principle to Judicial doctrine. USA: Harvard University Press, 1998.
PEIRCE, Charles S. How to Make Our Ideas Clear. Popular Science Monthly, Winter Park (US), n. 12, 1878.
ROBBINS, Lionel. Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility. The Economic Journal, Wiley (US), n. 635, 1938.
POUND, Roscoe. Law in Books and Law in Action. American Law Review, Fresno (US), n. 34, 1910.
______. Liberty of Contract. Yale Law Journal, Yale (US), n.18, 1909.
______. Mechanical Jurisprudence. Columbia Law Review, Columbia (US), n. 8, 1908.
SPENSER, Herbert. The Man versus The State, with six essays on government, society and freedom Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1981.
STRUM, Philippa. Louis Brandeis: justice for the people. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Lochner versus New York 198 U.S. 45, 1905. Disponível em: <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0198_0045_ZS.html> Acesso em: 7 nov. 2012.
VEBLEN, Thorstein. The Limitations of Marginal Utility. Journal of Political Economy, Chicago (US) n. 17, 1909.
VEBLEN. Thorstein. The theory of business enterprise New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1904.
VEBLEN. Thorstein. Theory of leisure class New York: Macmillan, 1899.

Datas de Publicação

Publicação nesta coleção
17 Jun 2013
Data do Fascículo
Dez 2012

Histórico

Recebido
30 Ago 2012
Aceito
09 Out 2012
Revisado
10 Set 2012

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

[1] ACKERMAN, Bruce. Nós, o povo soberano: fundamentos do direito constitucional. Belo Horizonte: Del Rey, 2006.

[2] ARROW, Kenneth J. A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare. The Journal of Political Economy, Chicago (US), v. 58, n. 4, 1950.

[3] BEARD, Charles A. An economic interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. New York: Free Press, 1986.

[4] COASE, Ronald H. The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics, Chicago (US), v. 1, n. 1, October, 1960.

[5] COHEN, Felix. Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach. Columbia Law Review Columbia (US), v. 6, n. 35, 1935.

[6] COMMONS, John. Institutional economics New York: McMillan, 1934.

[7] ______. Law and Economics. Yale Law Journal, Yale (US), n. 34, February, 1925.

[8] DARWIN, Charles. The origin of species Oxford - New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

[9] DUXBURY, Neil. Patterns of American jurisprudence New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

[10] FRIED, Barbara H. The progressive assault on laissez faire: Robert Hale and the first Law and Economics movement. 2. ed. USA: Harvard University Press, 2001.

[11] GILMORE, Grant. Le grandi epoche del diritto americano Milano: Giufrè, 1991.

[12] HALE, Robert. Our Equivocal Constitutional Guaranties. Columbia Law Review, Columbia (US), n. 39, 1939.

[13] ______. Force and the State: A comparison of "Political" and "Economic" Compulsion. Columbia Law Review, Columbia (US), n. 35, 1935.

[14] ______. Coercion and Distribution in a supposedly Noncoercive State. Political Science Quarterly, New York (US), n. 38, 1923.

[15] GREY, Thomas C. Langdell's Orthodoxy. University of Pittsburgh Law Review. Pittsburgh (US), v. 1, n. 45, 1983.

[16] HICKS, John. The Foundations of welfare Economics. The Economic Journal, Wiley (US), December, 1939.

[17] HOLMES JUNIOR, Oliver Wendell. The essential Holmes Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1992.

[18] HOLMES JUNIOR, Oliver Wendell. The common law New York: Dover, 1991.

[19] HORWITZ, Morton. The transformation of american law, 1870-1960: the crisis of legal ortodoxy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

[20] HOVENKAMP, Herbert. Knowledge About Welfare: Legal Realism and the Separation of Law and Economics. Minnesota Law Review, Minnesota, v. 84, 2000.

[21] ______. Enterprise and American Law 1836-1937 USA: Harvard University Press, 1991.

[22] ______. The First Great Law & Economics Movement. Stanford Law Review, Stanford, n. 42, 1990.

[23] ______. The Mind and Heart of Progressive Legal Thought [2011]. Disponível em: <http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/preslectures/hovenkamp95/hovenkamp1.html>. Acesso em: 1º mar. 2011.

[24] HUERTA DE SOTO, Jesús. Escola austríaca: mercado e criatividade empresarial. Lisboa: Causa Liberal, 2005.

[25] KALDOR, Nicholas. Welfare Propositions in Economics and Interpersonal Comparison of Utility. The Economic Journal, Wiley (US), September, 1939.

[26] MACPHPERSON, C. B. The political theory of possessive individualism: Hobbes to Locke. 8. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979.

[27] MILL, John Stuart. The principles of political economy with some of their applications to social philosophy. School of Economics, Finance and Management - University of Bristol. [2011]. Disponível em: <http://www.ecn.bris.ac.uk/het/mill/prin.htm>. Acesso em: 1º mar. 2011.

[28] MINDA, Gary. Teorie posmoderne del diritto Bologna: Mulino, 2001.

[29] NELSON, Willian E. The Fourteenth Amendment: from political principle to Judicial doctrine. USA: Harvard University Press, 1998.

[30] PEIRCE, Charles S. How to Make Our Ideas Clear. Popular Science Monthly, Winter Park (US), n. 12, 1878.

[31] ROBBINS, Lionel. Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility. The Economic Journal, Wiley (US), n. 635, 1938.

[32] POUND, Roscoe. Law in Books and Law in Action. American Law Review, Fresno (US), n. 34, 1910.

[33] ______. Liberty of Contract. Yale Law Journal, Yale (US), n.18, 1909.

[34] ______. Mechanical Jurisprudence. Columbia Law Review, Columbia (US), n. 8, 1908.

[35] SPENSER, Herbert. The Man versus The State, with six essays on government, society and freedom Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1981.

[36] STRUM, Philippa. Louis Brandeis: justice for the people. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984.

[37] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Lochner versus New York 198 U.S. 45, 1905. Disponível em: <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0198_0045_ZS.html> Acesso em: 7 nov. 2012.

[38] VEBLEN, Thorstein. The Limitations of Marginal Utility. Journal of Political Economy, Chicago (US) n. 17, 1909.

[39] VEBLEN. Thorstein. The theory of business enterprise New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1904.

[40] VEBLEN. Thorstein. Theory of leisure class New York: Macmillan, 1899.

Brasil

Brasil

Pragmatismo em filosofia, realismo em direito e o duplo assalto à economia política clássica: as bases do First Law and Economics Movement na Progressive Era Americana (1880-1930)

Resumos

Datas de Publicação

Histórico