IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/rlecon/v7y2011i3n8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When "Stuff Happens" Isn't Enough: How An Evolutionary Theory of Doctrinal and Legal System Development Can Enrich Comparative Legal Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Goodenough Oliver R.

    (Vermont Law School and Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard University)

Abstract

Comparative legal scholarship will benefit from better explanations of legal development. While the complications of legal systems are a challenge for cause and effect stories, evolutionary theory offers a powerful, yet relatively simple, set of explanatory principles that can be appropriately applied to both doctrinal topics and legal systems as a whole. The necessary starting point for an evolutionary analysis is to examine the three core components of evolution: descent, variation, and selection. Engaging these topics and developing good descriptions for each of them for the targeted system can be very helpful in providing good explanations to the “why” questions of comparative law analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Goodenough Oliver R., 2011. "When "Stuff Happens" Isn't Enough: How An Evolutionary Theory of Doctrinal and Legal System Development Can Enrich Comparative Legal Studies," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(3), pages 805-820, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:7:y:2011:i:3:n:8
    DOI: 10.2202/1555-5879.1572
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1555-5879.1572
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1555-5879.1572?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simon Deakin, 2002. "Evolution for our time: a theory of legal memetics," Working Papers wp242, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    2. Du Laing Bart, 2011. "Bio-Legal History, Dual Inheritance Theory and Naturalistic Comparative Law: On Content and Context Biases in Legal Evolution," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(3), pages 685-709, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Du Laing Bart & De Coninck Julie, 2011. "Introduction: Symposium on Evolutionary Approaches to (Comparative) Law: Integrating Theoretical Perspectives," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(3), pages 653-658, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Deakin, S., 2011. "Legal Evolution: Integrating Economic and Systemic Approaches," Working Papers wp424, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    2. Deakin Simon, 2011. "Legal Evolution: Integrating Economic and Systemic Approaches," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(3), pages 659-683, December.
    3. Mathias M Siems, 2006. "Legal origins: reconciling law and finance and comparative law," Working Papers wp321, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    4. Du Laing Bart & De Coninck Julie, 2011. "Introduction: Symposium on Evolutionary Approaches to (Comparative) Law: Integrating Theoretical Perspectives," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(3), pages 653-658, December.
    5. Lourenço, A., 2010. "Autopoetic Social Systems Theory: The Co-evolution of Law and the Economy," Working Papers wp409, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    6. Du Laing Bart, 2011. "Bio-Legal History, Dual Inheritance Theory and Naturalistic Comparative Law: On Content and Context Biases in Legal Evolution," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(3), pages 685-709, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:7:y:2011:i:3:n:8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.