IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/amlawe/v8y2006i1p81-115.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Duel of Honor: Screening For Unobservable Social Capital

Author

Listed:
  • Douglas W. Allen
  • Clyde G. Reed

Abstract

The duel of honor was a highly ritualized violent activity practiced (mostly) by aristocrats from about 1500 to 1900. The duel of honor was held in private, was attended by seconds and other members of society, was illegal, and often resulted from trivial incidents. Duels were fought according to strict codes, their lethality fell over time, and certain members of society were not allowed to duel. We argue dueling functioned as a screen for unobservable investments in social capital. Social capital was used during this period to support political transactions in an age when high civil service appointments were made through patronage. The screening hypothesis explains the puzzling features of the duel of honor, its rise and fall over time and locations, and the differences between European and American duels. In a state of highly polished society, an affront is held to be a serious injury. It must, therefore, be resented, or rather a duel must be fought upon it; as men have agreed to banish from their society one who puts up with an affront without fighting a duel. --Samuel Johnson, quoted in James Boswell Copyright 2006, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Douglas W. Allen & Clyde G. Reed, 2006. "The Duel of Honor: Screening For Unobservable Social Capital," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 8(1), pages 81-115.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:amlawe:v:8:y:2006:i:1:p:81-115
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/aler/ahj006
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Douglas W. Allen & Peter T. Leeson, 2015. "Institutionally Constrained Technology Adoption: Resolving the Longbow Puzzle," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(3).
    2. David Skarbek & Peng Wang, 2015. "Criminal rituals," Global Crime, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 288-305, October.
    3. Srivastava, Vatsalya, 2016. "The Sorry Clause," Other publications TiSEM 9340f3b1-ebf3-46b9-8ffd-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Srivastava, Vatsalya, 2017. "The Sorry Clause (revision of CentER DP 2016-008)," Discussion Paper 2017-002, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    5. Hassani Mahmooei, Behrooz & Vahabi, Mehrdad, 2012. "Dueling for honor and identity economics," MPRA Paper 44370, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Srivastava, Vatsalya, 2017. "The Sorry Clause (Revision of TILEC DP 2016-004)," Discussion Paper 2017-002, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
    7. Antony W. Dnes & Nuno Garoupa, 2010. "Behavior, Human Capital and the Formation of Gangs," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(4), pages 517-529, November.
    8. Srivastava, Vatsalya, 2016. "The Sorry Clause," Discussion Paper 2016-008, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    9. Srivastava, Vatsalya, 2016. "The Sorry Clause," Other publications TiSEM 51d65f16-812c-4fbd-9cd2-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Jensen, Jeffrey L. & Ramey, Adam J., 2020. "Going postal: State capacity and violent dispute resolution," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 779-796.
    11. Tom Ahn & Paul Shea & Jeremy Sandford, 2023. "Lethality and deterrence in affairs of honor: The case of the Antebellum U.S. South," Rationality and Society, , vol. 35(3), pages 259-292, August.
    12. Escalante, Edwar E. & March, Raymond J., 2020. "Fighting on Christmas: brawling as self-governance in rural Peru," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(3), pages 355-368, June.
    13. Christian J. Sander, 2024. "Revolutionary leaders and the punishment of critics," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 200(1), pages 237-256, July.
    14. Allen, Douglas W., 2009. "A theory of the pre-modern British aristocracy," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 299-313, July.
    15. Srivastava, Vatsalya, 2017. "The Sorry Clause (Revision of TILEC DP 2016-004)," Other publications TiSEM 5925920e-05c6-4ae0-8e76-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. Srivastava, Vatsalya, 2017. "The Sorry Clause (revision of CentER DP 2016-008)," Other publications TiSEM 252e9410-4c9f-4a40-9ab7-a, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    17. Vahabi, Mehrdad & Hassani-Mahmooei, Behrooz, 2016. "The role of identity and authority from anarchy to order: Insights from modeling the trajectory of dueling in Europe," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 57-72.
    18. Srivastava, Vatsalya, 2016. "The Sorry Clause," Discussion Paper 2016-004, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.

    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:oup:amlawe:v:8:y:2006:i:1:p:81-115. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/aler .

    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.