¡Las preferencias dependen del punto de referencia! Un desafío alAnálisis Económico –y coaseano– del Derecho

Autori

  • Daniel Alejandro Monroy Cely Universidad Externado de Colombia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5347/isonomia.v0i53.285

Parole chiave:

preferenze individuali, teoria dell'analisi economica del diritto, teorema di Coase, dipendenza dal riferimento

Abstract

Le preferenze dipendono dal punto di riferimento! Una sfida all'analisi economica – e coaseana – del diritto


La teoria "coasiana" del diritto, e l'analisi economica del diritto (AED) in generale, presuppone implicitamente la veridicità di due premesse comportamentali: l'"esogeneità della preferenza" e l'"indipendenza dal riferimento". Questo articolo evidenzia alcune obiezioni a queste premesse, per poi mostrare alcune implicazioni: (i) come l'AED -da un punto di vista positivo- predice i comportamenti delle persone e gli effetti delle norme giuridiche intese come incentivi, e (ii) come, -da un punto di vista normativo- la teoria economica suggerisce le decisioni del giudice o del legislatore. L'articolo presenta anche le sfide che l'AED affronta quando accetta la premessa comportamentale secondo cui le persone valutano i diritti individuali non in termini assoluti, ma in termini relativi, in rapporto a un punto di riferimento (dipendenza dal riferimento).

Riferimenti bibliografici

Allen, Douglas, 1998: “Property rights, transaction costs, and Coase: one more time”, en Medema, Steven (ed.), Coasean Economics: Law and Economics and the New Institutional. New York, Springer Science+Business Media, pp. 105-118.

Barberis, Nicholas, 2013: “Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment”. Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 27, núm. 1, pp. 173-196.

Bateman, Ian, Alistair Munro, Bruce Rhodes, Chris Starmer y Robert Sugden, 1997: “A Test of the Theory of Reference-Dependent Preferences”. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 112, núm. 2, pp. 479-505.

Beyer, Harald, 1992: “Ronald H. Coase y su contribución a la teoría de la economía y el derecho”. Estudios Públicos, núm. 45, pp. 59-79.

Boyce, Rebecca, Thomas Brown, Gary McClelland, George Peterson y William Schulze, 1992: “An Experimental Examination of Intrinsic Values as a Source of the WTA-WTP Disparity”. The American Economic Review, vol. 82, núm. 5, pp. 1366-1373.

Calabresi, Guido y Douglas Melamed, 1972: “Property Rules, Liability Rules and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral”. Harvard Law Review, vol. 85, núm. 6, pp. 1089-1128. Citado por la traducción castellana de Zabala, Ximena y Sotelo Eduardo: “Reglas de propiedad, reglas de responsabilidad y reglas de inalienabilidad: Un vistazo a la catedral”, en Calabresi, Guido, Un vistazo a la catedral: cuando el derecho se encuentra con la economía. Lima, Palestra, 2010, pp. 363-404.

Camerer, Colin y George Loewenstein, 2004: “Behavioral Economics: Past, Present, Future” en Camerer, Colin, George Loewenstein y Rabin Matthew (eds.), Advances in Behavioral Economics. New York, Princeton University Press, pp. 3-51.

Cartwright, Edward, 2011: “Simple Heuristics for Complex Choices”, en Cartwright, Edward, Behavioral Economics. New York, Routledge, pp. 27-84.

Chernev, Alexander, 2004: “Goal Orientation and Consumer Preference for the Status Quo”. Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 31, núm. 3, pp. 557-565.

Coase, Ronald, 1960: “The Problem of Social Cost”. Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 3, pp. 1-44.

Coleman, Jules, 1980: “Efficiency, Utility, and Wealth Maximization”. Hofstra Law Review, vol. 8, núm. 3, pp. 509-551.

Cooter, Robert y Daniel Rubinfeld, 1989: “Economic Analysis of Legal Disputes and Their Resolution”. Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 27, núm. 3, pp. 1067-1097.

Cooter, Robert y Thomas Ulen, 2011: Law and Economics. Boston, Addison-Wesley.

Cowen, Tyler, 1993: “The Scope and Limits of Preference Sovereignty”. Economics & Philosophy, vol. 9, núm, 2, pp. 253-269.

Demsetz, Harold, 1972: “Wealth Distribution and the Ownership of Rights”. The Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 1, núm. 2, pp. 223-232.

Dhami, Sanjit y al-Nowaihi Ali, 2018: “Prospect Theory, Crime and Punishment”, en Teitelbaum, Joshua y Zeiler Kathryn (eds.) Research Handbook on Behavioral Law and Economics. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 174-218.

Dommer, Sara y Vanitha Swaminathan, 2013: “Explaining the Endowment Effect through Ownership: The Role of Identity, Gender, and Self-Threat”. Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 39, núm. 5, pp. 1034-1050.

Fehr-Duda, Helga y Thomas Epper, 2012: “Probability and Risk: Foundations and Economic Implications of Probability-Dependent Risk”. Annual Review of Economics, vol. 4, núm. 1, pp. 567-593.

Furche, Andreas y David Johnstone, 2006: “Evidence of the Endowment Effect in Stock Market Order Placement”. Journal of Behavioral Finance, vol. 7, núm. 3, pp. 145-154.

García, Mauricio, 2009: Normas de papel: La cultura del incumplimiento de reglas. Bogotá, Siglo del Hombre Editores.

Hargreaves, Shaun, 2013: “What Is the Meaning of Behavioural Economics?”. Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 37, núm 5. pp. 985-1000.

Harless, David y Colin Camerer, 1994: “The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories”. Econometrica, vol. 62, núm 6, pp. 1251-1289.

Hartman, Raymond, Michael Doane y Chi-Keung Woo, 1991: “Consumer Rationality and the Status Quo”. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 106, núm. 1, pp. 141-162.

Hart, Oliver y John Moore, 2008: “Contracts as Reference Points”. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 123, núm. 1, pp. 1-48.

Hoffman, Elizabeth y Matthew Spitzer, 1993: “Willingness to Pay vs. Willingness to Accept: Legal and Economic Implications”. Washington University Law Quarterly, vol. 71, pp. 59-114.

Hovenkamp, Herbert, 1990: “Marginal Utility and the Coase Theorem”. Cornell Law Review, vol. 75, núm. 4, pp. 783-810.

Hsu, Ming, Ian Krajbich, Chen Zhao y Colin Camerer, 2009: “Neural Response to Reward Anticipation under Risk Is Nonlinear in Probabilities”. The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 29, núm. 7, pp. 2231-2237.

Johnson, Eric, Gerald Häubl y Anat Keinan, 2007: “Aspects of Endowment: A Query Theory of Value Construction”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol. 33, núm. 3, pp. 461-474.

Jolls, Christine, Cass Sunstein y Richard Thaler, 1998: “A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics”. Stanford Law Review, vol. 50, núm 5, pp. 1471-1550.

Kachelmeier, Steven y Mohamed Shehata, 1992: “Examining Risk Preferences Under High Monetary Incentives: Experimental Evidence from the People's Republic of China”. The American Economic Review, vol. 82, núm. 5, pp. 1120-1141.

Kahneman, Daniel y Jack Knetsch y Richard Thaler, 1986a: “Fairness and the Assumptions of Economics”. The Journal of Business, vol. 59, núm 4, part 2, pp. S285-S300.

________, 1986b: “Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlements in the Market”. The American Economic Review, vol. 76, núm. 4, pp. 728-741.

________, 1990: “Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem”. The Journal of Political Economy, vol. 98, núm. 6, pp. 1325-1348.

________, 1991: “Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias”. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 5, núm. 1, pp. 193-206.

Kitch, Edmund, 1983: “The Intellectual Foundations of "Law and Economics”. Journal of Legal Education, vol. 33, núm. 2, pp. 184-196.

Knetsch, Jack, 1989: “The Endowment Effect and Evidence of Nonreversible Indifference Curves”. American Economic Review, vol. 79, num. 5, pp. 1277-1284.

Knetsch, Jack yFang-Fang Tang, 2006: “The Context, or Reference, Dependence of Economic Values: Further Evidence and Some Predictable Patterns”, en Altman, Morris (ed.), Handbook of Contemporary Behavioral Economics: Foundations and Developments. New York, M.E. Sharpe, pp. 423-440.

Korobkin, Russell, 1998: “Inertia and Preference in Contract Negotiation: The Psychological Power of Default Rules and Form Terms”. Vanderbilt Law Review, vol. 51, núm. 6, pp. 1583-1651.

________, 2003: “The Endowment Effect and Legal Analysis”. Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 97, núm 3, pp. 1227-1291.

Korobkin, Russell y Thomas Ulen, 2000: “Law and Behavioral Science: Removing the Rationality Assumption from Law and Economics”. California Law Review, vol. 88, núm. 4, pp. 1051-1144.

Kőszegi, Botond y Matthew Rabin, 2006: “A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences”. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 121, núm. 4, pp. 1133-1165.

Lin, Chien-Huang, Shih-Chieh Chuang, Danny Kao y Chaang-Yung Kung, 2006: “The Role of Emotions in the Endowment Effect”. Journal of Economic Psychology, vol. 27, núm. 4, pp. 589-597.

Loomes, Graham, 1999: “Some Lessons from Past Experiments and Some Challenges for the Future”. The Economic Journal, vol. 109, núm. 453, pp. F35-F45.

Mathis, Klaus, 2009: Efficiency Instead of Justice? Searching for the Philosophical Foundations of the Economic Analysis of Law. Amsterdam, Springer.

Medema, Steven, 1999: “Legal Fiction: The Place of the Coase Theorem in Law and Economics”. Economics and Philosophy, vol. 15, núm. 2, pp. 209-233.

________, 2011: “A Case of Mistaken Identity: George Stigler, ‘The Problem of Social Cost,’ and the Coase Theorem”. European Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 31, núm. 1, pp. 11-38.

Monroy, Daniel, 2011: “Más vale malo conocido que...: el efecto dotación y los pronósticos teóricos del Teorema de Coase”, en AA.VV., Colección Enrique Low Murtra - Derecho Económico, tomo VIII. Bogotá, Universidad Externado de Colombia, pp. 151-211.

________, 2016: “Regulación ambiental y efecto dotación: algunos retos y -una- solución”, en García Pachón, María del Pilar (ed.), Instrumentos económicos y financieros para la gestión ambiental. Bogotá, Universidad Externado de Colombia, pp. 335-383.

________, 2017. “Nudges y decisiones inconscientes: sesgo de statu quo y políticas públicas en Colombia”. Desafíos, vol. 29, núm. 1, pp. 211-247.

________, 2019: “El homo [no tan] economicus y el derecho: Una crítica a la teoría positiva de la elección racional en el Derecho”, en Blanco Barón, Constanza (ed.), Serie de Derecho Económico - Discusiones Contemporáneas de Derecho Económico, vol. 4. Bogotá, Universidad Externado de Colombia, pp. 15-65.

Nicita, Antonio y Matteo Rizzolli, 2014: “In Dubio Pro Reo. Behavioral Explanations of Pro-defendant Bias in Procedures”. CESifo Economic Studies, vol. 60, núm. 3, pp. 554-580.

Parisi, Francesco, 2003: “Political Coase Theorem”. Public Choice, vol. 115, núm. 1, pp. 1-36.

_______, 2004: “Positive, Normative and Functional Schools in Law and Economics”. European Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 18, núm. 3, pp. 259-272.

________, 2005: “Coase Theorem and Transaction Cost Economics in the Law”, en Backhaus, Jürgen (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Law and Economics. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 7-39.

Pogarsky, Greg, Sean Roche y Justin Pickett, 2018: “Offender Decision-Making in Criminology: Contributions from Behavioral Economics”. Annual Review of Criminology, vol. 1, pp. 379-400.

Posner, Richard, 1979: “Utilitarianism, Economics, and Legal Theory”. The Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 8, núm. 1, pp. 103-140.

________, 1993: The Problems of Jurisprudence. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

________, 2002: Economic Analysis of Law. New York, Aspen Publishers. Citado por la traducción castellana de Suarez, Eduardo: El análisis económico del derecho. México, Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2007.

Ritov, Ilana y Jonathan Baron, 1992: “Status-quo and Omission Biases”. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol. 5, núm. 1, p. 49-61.

Rose-Ackerman, Susan, 1985: “Inalienability and the Theory of Property Rights”. Columbia Law Review, vol. 85, núm. 5, pp. 931-969.

Samuelson, William y Richard Zeckhauser, 1988: “Status Quo Bias in Decision Making”. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol. 1, núm. 1, pp. 7-59.

Sen, Amartya, 1993: “Internal Consistency of Choice”. Econometrica, vol. 61, núm. 3, pp. 495-521.

Shogren, Jason, 2006: “Waugh Lecture: A Rule of One”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 88, núm. 5, pp. 1147-1159.

________, 2012: “Behavioural Economics and Environmental Incentives”. OECD Environment Working Papers, vol. 49.

Shogren, Jason y Laura Taylor, 2008: “On Behavioral-Environmental Economics”. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, vol. 2, núm. 1, pp. 26-44.

Stigler, George, 1987: Theory of Price, 4° ed. New York, Macmillan Publishing Company.

Stigler, George y Gary Becker, 1977: “De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum”. The American Economic Review, vol. 67, núm. 2, pp. 76-90.

Sunstein, Cass, 1991: “Preferences and Politics”. Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 20, núm. 1, pp. 3-34.

________, 1993: “Endogenous Preferences, Environmental Law”. The Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 22, núm. 2, pp. 217-254.

________, 2002: “Switching the Default Rule”. New York University Law Review, Symposium On Behavioral Economics & Labor Law, vol. 77, pp. 106-134.

________, 2007: “Willingness To Pay vs. Welfare”. Harvard Law & Policy Review, vol. 1, núm. 2, pp. 303-330.

Tversky, Amos y Daniel Kahneman, 1986: “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions”. The Journal of Business, vol. 59, núm. 4, pp. S251-S278.

Tversky, Amos e Itamar Simonson, 1993: “Context-Dependent Preferences”. Management Science, vol. 39, núm. 10, pp. 1179-1189.

van Dijk, Eric y Daan van Knippenberg, 1996: “Buying and Selling Exchange Goods: Loss Aversion and the Endowment Effect”. Journal of Economic Psychology, vol. 17, núm. 4, pp. 517-524.

Zelder, Martin, 1998: “The Cost of Accosting Coase: A Reconciliatory Survey of Proofs and Disproofs of the Coase Theorem”. en Medema, Steven (ed.), Coasean Economics: Law and Economics and the New Institutional. New York, Springer Science+Business Media, pp. 65-94.

Pubblicato

2020-10-31

Come citare

Monroy Cely, D. A. (2020). ¡Las preferencias dependen del punto de referencia! Un desafío alAnálisis Económico –y coaseano– del Derecho. Isonomía - Revista De teoría Y filosofía Del Derecho, (53). https://doi.org/10.5347/isonomia.v0i53.285

Fascicolo

Sezione

Artícoli