University of Surrey

Test tubes in the lab Research in the ATI Dance Research

Fairness Versus Welfare: The Limits of Kaplow and Shavell’s Pareto Argument

Taggart, Christopher (2016) Fairness Versus Welfare: The Limits of Kaplow and Shavell’s Pareto Argument Marquette Law Review, 99 (3), 6. pp. 661-723.

[img]
Preview
Text
Fairness Versus Welfare- The Limits of Kaplow and Shavell-s Paret.pdf - Version of Record
Available under License : See the attached licence file.

Download (354kB) | Preview
[img]
Preview
PDF (licence)
SRI_deposit_agreement.pdf
Available under License : See the attached licence file.

Download (33kB) | Preview

Abstract

In a series of articles and a book, Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell (KS) articulated and defended the normative approach of standard law-and-economics. KS also argued that legal analysts should think in welfare-economic terms exclusively when advising on normative social issues of tremendous import. This thesis generated controversy within the legal academic community because it implied that numerous analysts were not doing an important part of their jobs the way that they should be doing it. One of KS’s main arguments featured a very plausible version of the Pareto principle. KS claimed that their Pareto argument demonstrated that any method of policy evaluation that gives any weight to principles independently of their effect on how well-off individuals become sometimes commits the evaluator to making everyone worse off. This Article argues that KS misstated what their Pareto argument demonstrated. It also argues that KS’s Pareto argument provides no independent reason to endorse any part of welfare economics and thus no independent reason to adhere exclusively to welfare-economic thinking. Additionally, the Article clarifies much of what is at stake in deciding whether to adopt an exclusively welfare-economic approach to normative legal scholarship. Finally, the Article suggests that KS’s central thesis is incorrect—there is an important place at the table for forms of normative analysis that diverge from a purely welfare-economic approach.

Item Type: Article
Subjects : Law
Divisions : Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences > School of Law
Authors :
NameEmailORCID
Taggart, Christopherc.taggart@surrey.ac.ukUNSPECIFIED
Date : 2016
Copyright Disclaimer : Copyright retained by the author, 2016. Published by Marquette University.
Related URLs :
Depositing User : Symplectic Elements
Date Deposited : 09 Sep 2016 17:07
Last Modified : 08 Aug 2017 08:03
URI: http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/id/eprint/812089

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year


Information about this web site

© The University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, United Kingdom.
+44 (0)1483 300800