¡Las preferencias dependen del punto de referencia! Un desafío alAnálisis Económico –y coaseano– del Derecho
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5347/isonomia.v0i53.285Palavras-chave:
preferências individuais, teoria da análise económica do direito, teorema de Coase, dependência da referênciaResumo
As preferências dependem do ponto de referência! Um desafio para a análise económica – e coaseana – do direito
Quer a teoria Coaseana do direito quer a análise económica do direito em geral assumem implicitamente a verdade de duas premissas sobre o comportamento humano: a “exogeneidade das preferências” e a “independência da referência”. Este artigo começa por esboçar algumas objeções a estas duas premissas e depois analisa algumas consequências sobre: (i) como a análise económica do direito, descritivamente, prevê o comportamento dos agentes e os efeitos das normas jurídicas entendidas como incentivos; e (ii) como, normativamente, a teoria económica guia as decisões a tomar pelo poder judicial e legislativo. O artigo apresenta ainda o desafio que se coloca à análise económica do direito uma vez que se aceita a premissa sobre a ação humana segundo a qual os agentes apreciam os direitos individuais não de forma absoluta, mas relativa em comparação com um determinado ponto de referência (dependência da referência).
Referências
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.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
ITAM, responsable de la publicación de la Revista, tiene los derechos de autor sobre los artículos publicados y el resto de las contribuciones. Las publicaciones están en acceso abierto y bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Esto significa, entre otras cosas, que los autores pueden compartir libremente sus artículos, una vez publicados en Isonomía, en sus páginas web personales, Academia.edu, etc. Entre la aceptación formal y la publicación en línea, los autores pueden compartir los borradores finales de sus artículos. En cambio, los autores deben pedir permiso para reproducir o reimprimir el trabajo, y mencionar, en la primera nota a pie de página, "publicado previamente en Isonomía, año, n. x, pp. xx-xx".
