Volume 2001
Socio-Economics and Other Schools of Thought
AALS Section on Socio-Economics
Annual Meeting Program
Wednesday, January 3, 2001 	
200 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
San Francisco Hilton
Socio-Economics and Other Schools of Thought
P r o g r a m
Overview of Annual Meeting Program
2:00 - 3:05 pm:  Concurrent Sessions
1.	Socio-Economics, Feminism, and Critical Race Theory  
2.	Other Economics Paradigms:    Post-Keynesian Law and Economics
3.	Socio-Economics and the Future of Family Law
3:15 - 4:20 pm:  Concurrent Sessions
1.      	Socio-Economics and Law and Economics
2.	Socio-Economics and Professional Responsibility
3.	Binary Economics:   Property, Wealth, Inequality and Growth - Looking For New Solutions Under Law
4:30 - 5:00 pm   Plenary Session:  -  Courses in Law and Socio-Economics 
2:00 - 3:05 pm:  Concurrent Sessions
1.	Socio-Economics, Feminism, and Critical Race Theory 
	Moderator:  Anthony E. Cook (Georgetown University Law Center)  
	Martha E. McCluskey (State University of New York at Buffalo School of Law)
	Terry A. O'Neill (Tulane University School of Law)
	Mary Jo Wiggins (University of San Diego)
2.	Other Economics Paradigms:    Post-Keynesian Law and Economics
	Mathew Forstater (University of Missouri - Kansas City)  "Post Keynesian Law  - An Overview"
	Johan Deprez (Whittier College): "Post Keynesian Law and Economics"
	Commentators:  Neil Buchanan (Michigan University 2L), Timothy Canova (University of New Mexico)
3.	Socio-Economics and the Future of Family Law
	Margaret Friedlander Brinig (University of Iowa)
	Gillian H. Hadfield (University of Toronto)
	June Carbone (Santa Clara University)
	Commentator:  Edward Rubin (University of Pennsylvania)
3:15 - 4:20 pm:  Concurrent Sessions
1.      	Socio-Economics and Law and Economics
	Moderator:  Edward Rubin (University of Pennsylvania)
	Robert Cooter (University of California, Berkeley)
	Oliver Williamson (University of California, Berkeley)
	Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt (University of Indiana, Bloomington)
2.	Socio-Economics and Professional Responsibility
	Peter Kostant (University of Denver):   Report on the Washington Meeting
	Amy Mashburn (University Florida):   "A Socio-Economic Perspective on Law Teaching"
	Milton C. Regan (Georgetown University) "A Socio-Economic Perspective on Lawyering"
3.	Binary Economics:   Property, Wealth, Inequality and Growth - New Solutions Under Law
	Moderator:   Anthony Cook (Georgetown University)
	Stephen V. Kane "The Binary Theory of Productiveness" (Kane and Associates)
	Commentators:  Katherine Kelso Balestreri (Bank of America), Neil Buchanan (Michigan University, 2L),  Timothy
	Canova (University of New Mexico), Richard Hattwick (Editor Journal of Socio-Economics),  Demetri Chanterelles
	(Assumption) John Jones (The Macken Financial Group), Thomas Ulen ( Illinois)
4:30 - 5:00 pm   Plenary Session:  -  Courses in Law and Socio-Economics 
	Moderator: Robert Ashford (Syracuse University)
	Lynne Dallas (University of San Diego)
	Commentators:  Richard Hattwick (Western Illinois University, Editor of the Journal of Socio-Economics)
	Daniel B. Rodriguez (Dean, San University of San Diego)
Thursday, January 4, 2001, 12:15-1:30 p.m.  
	Socio-Economics Luncheon:   Richard Hattwick, Editor, Journal of Socio-Economics and 
			Morris Altman, Editor-Elect, Journal of Socio-Economics
Program  Descriptions
2:00 - 3:05 pm:  Concurrent Sessions
1.	Socio-Economics, Feminism, and Critical Race Theory  
	Moderator:  Anthony E. Cook (Georgetown University)
	Martha E. McCluskey (State University of New York at Buffalo)
	Terry A. O'Neill (Tulane University)
	Mary Jo Wiggins (University of San Diego)
This panel will explore Law and Socio-Economics from critical race and feminist perspectives. From a critical race
perspective, Anthony Cook will discuss Law and Socio-Economics as it relates to the social institution of slavery and its
aftermath, and will explore the question of what is the public's responsibility for the public wrong of slavery.  From a
feminist perspective, Martha E. McCluskey will explore the question of what is the public responsibility for unwaged
caretaking work primarily performed by women.  Also, from a feminist perspective, Terry O'Neill will explore the public
responsibilities of a "private" sector consisting of large publicly traded corporations. Mary Jo Wiggins will provide
commentary.
2.	Other Economics Paradigms:    Post-Keynesian Law and Economics
	Mathew Forstater (University of Missouri - Kansas City)  "Post Keynesian Law  - An Overview"
	Johan Deprez (Whittier College): "Post Keynesian Law and Economics"
	Neil Buchanan (Michigan University,  2L)
	Timothy Canova (University of New Mexico)
Good lawyers and socio-economists are always open to new paradigms for understanding the connections between law and economics.
They evaluate different paradigms in terms of whether they (1) rest on reasonable assumptions, (2) are internally consistent and (3)
have descriptive, predictive, and prescriptive value.   Law and economics intersect well beyond the micro-economic contexts which
in marginal analysis and rational choice theory have their most reliable application.  This year's program will consider "Post-Keynesian
Economics" and its relationship to law and economics.   Post-Keynesian economics has been described as an economic method that
builds upon Keynes' pathbreaking work in  providing an alternative to neoclassical economics  and that moves even further away from
the marginalist method that still dominates today's orthodox economics to address the issues raised by advanced capitalist economies.
Key components of the Post Keynesian perspective include the recognition that (1) economic agents operate in an environment of true
uncertainty; (2) the economy is best modeled as existing in historical rather than logical or mechanical time; (3) oligopolies play
a central role in advanced markets; and (4) income distribution is crucial in understanding the macro-dynamics of modern economies.
Beyond this general description, the Post-Keynesian label embraces a number of approaches to economics that are distinct from
neoclassical economics.   This panel will introduce some of these approaches and will discuss their applications to law teaching related
to economics and public policy.    
3.	Socio-Economics and the Future of Family Law
	Margaret Friedlander Brinig (University of Iowa)
	Gillian H. Hadfield (University of Toronto)
	June Carbone (Santa Clara University)
	Commentator:  Edward Rubin (University of Pennsylvania)
This panel will explore the socio-economics of the family and its relation to family law. A number of recent developments offer the
possibility of a broader approach to understanding family law since Gary Becker's early work in the 1970's and  80's.  Both proponents
and critics of the rational actor model recognize that a fuller explanation  of human behavior requires moving beyond a model based
solely on narrow  self-interest.   This recognition has led to a greater interest in norm creation, culture and values, moral obligation,
shared expectations and the meaning of choice.  The importance of these issues has become of central importance to family law. As
a consequence, legal regulation of the family has shifted from a focus on the relationship between parents to the parent's relationship
to children.   A growing body of empirical work testing the validity of economic theories of the family informs these developments.
Professor Brinig has spearheaded the empirical examination not just of family behavior, but of its relationship to economic predictions
about the  interaction between family members. Her most recent work addresses the creation of norms about the division of labor
between spouses, the relationship between custody expectations and the likelihood of divorce, and the role of shared expectations in
the longevity of intimate partnerships.  Professor Hadfield is a well established commentator on the strengths and limits of economic
analysis.  She has written persuasively on the construction  of gender, and the meaning of choice in economic theory.  Professor
Carbone has recently completed a book documenting the shift from partners to parents as the basis for moral and legal obligation within
the family, and is using that analysis to consider the class and race based implications of partner bargaining on the well-being of
children.
3:15 - 4:20 pm:  Concurrent Sessions
1.      	Socio-Economics and Law and Economics
	Moderator:  Edward Rubin (University of Pennsylvania)
	Robert Cooter (University of California, Berkeley)
	Oliver Williamson (University of California, Berkeley)
	Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt (University of Indiana, Bloomington)
The panel will focus on the relationship of post-neoclassic economics to legal scholarship, and to law.  For many legal scholars,
economics
still means neoclassical economics, and this in turn produces a negative reaction.  While the neoclassic model has had a decisive impact
on business law (e.g. securities law, antitrust and bankruptcy) it has made less headway in closely related areas such as commercial
law (the UCC), property or even contracts, and still less in public law areas.  Part of the reason for this resistance is that the model of
human and institutional behavior that neoclassical economics uses has proven  unconvincing to many legal academics.  In addition,
neoclassical
economics presents a thin, or minimalist model of institutions that conflicts with the institutional orientation of law professors since
the advent of the Legal Process School.  Thus, the promise of post-neoclassic approaches is that they can expand the extent and impact
of economic analysis in legal teaching and research.  The panel is designed to explain such approaches, to explore the relationships
between them, and to discuss their relevance to current issues in legal scholarship.
2.	Socio-Economics and Professional Responsibility
	Peter Kostant (University of Denver):   Report on the Washington Meeting
	Amy Mashburn (University of Florida):   "A Socio-Economic Perspective on Law Teaching"
	Milton C. Regan (Georgetown) "A Socio-Economic Perspective on Lawyering"
           
This session will begin with a report by Peter Kostant (Denver)  summarizing last year's Annual Meeting discussion among Robert
Ashford (Syracuse University), Sherman Cohn (Georgetown), Peter Kostant (University of Denver), Amy Mashburn (Florida) Thomas
Morgan (Brigham Young) and Paul Rothstein (Georgetown) on the following: (1) do the ethical rules (rules, codes, statutes,
constitutional provisions, etc.)  governing lawyers  require lawyers to assume a socio-economic approach to legal/economic issues?
(2) Do the rules live up to socio-economic aspirations?  (3) Does a commitment to socio-economics approach require a different
approach or analysis in reaching ethical decisions than one not informed by socio-economic principles?   (4) Does a commitment to
socio-economic principles lead to different conclusions regarding what is ethical behavior for lawyers (e.g., the confidentiality and
disclosure obligations of corporate counsel)?   (5) Does a commitment to socio-economic principles influence how professional
responsibility and economic principles should be taught in law schools? Building on this background, Milton C. Regan  (Georgetown)
will present  "A Socio-Economic Perspective on Lawyering" and Amy Mashburn (Florida)  will present  "A Socio-Economic
Perspective on Law Teaching."
3.	Binary Economics:   Property, Wealth, Inequality and Growth -- Looking for New Solutions Under Law
	Moderator:   Anthony Cook;
	Stephen V. Kane (Kane and Associates)  "The Binary Theory of Productiveness"
	Commentators:  Katherine Kelso Balestreri (Bank of America), Neil Buchanan (Michigan University, 2L),  Timothy Canova (University of New Mexico), Richard Hattwick (Editor Journal of Socio-Economics),  Demetri Chanterelles (Assumption) John Jones (The Macken Financial Group), Thomas Ulen ( Illinois) 
Binary economics offers a new understanding of the role of private property in achieving economic efficiency, growth, and justice
that is foundationally distinct from left-wing, right-wing or mixed-centrists theories and strategies.   Based on the "independent
productiveness of capital," binary economics holds that capital has both a productive relationship to growth and a very potent (but
presently untapped) distributive relationship to growth that is independent of productivity gains and governmental strategies to
redistribute income or regulate demand.   If capital has a potent distributive relationship to growth (as binary economics contends),
then growth is suppressed as capital acquisition remains concentrated and is enhanced as capital is more broadly acquired.   According
to binary logic, with modest reforms, the same economic, financial, tax, fiscal, and monetary policies and institutions (that presently
facilitate capital acquisition, paid for with the earnings of capital, primarily for the benefit of well-capitalized people) can increasingly
be made competitively available to poor and working people. With these reforms in place, binary economists predict that substantial
distribution-based "binary growth" will spontaneously result from voluntary market transactions. 
In this session, in a paper entitled "The Binary Theory of Productiveness" (forthcoming in the Journal of Socio-Economics), based
on rigorous micro-economic and macro-economic analysis, but modifying that analysis to account for the independent productiveness
capital, economist Steven Kane provides strong support for the distribution-based "binary growth" predictions.  In terms familiar to
economists, and yet understandable to the less initiated, Kane explains how  under our present system of corporate finance, capital
investment is suppressed because it is burdened with a risk, scarcity and redistribution premium that would be gradually reduced as
more people are enabled to acquire capital with the earnings of capital and then supplement their consumer income with capital
earnings. 
4:30 - 5:00 pm:  	Plenary Session:  Courses in Law and Socio-Economics
	Moderator: Robert Ashford (Syracuse University)
	Lynne Dallas (University of San Diego)
	Richard Hattwick (Western Illinois University, Editor of the Journal of Socio-Economics)
	Daniel B. Rodriguez (Dean, San University of San Diego)
Professor Lynne Dallas (San Diego)  is the first professor to offer a law school course in law and socio-economics.
In this session, Professor Dallas will discuss alternative approaches to constructing a course in law and socio-
economics.  She will provide copies the course description and assignment sheets.  She will also relate her experience
in teaching the course and the students' reactions to it, present her syllabus, course description and an overview of the
course and share her  experience during the semester.    Richard Hattwick, Editor of the Journal of Socio-Economics
and Daniel B. Rodriguez, Dean, San University of San Diego School of Law, will provide commentary.
*****************
The Berkeley Conference on Socio-Economics 
Wednesday, January 3, 2001
9:00 a.m. to 12:00  p.m.
 9:00 am -  9:15 am 	Welcoming Remarks - Overview 
 9:20 am - 10:20 am     Concurrent Sessions [see (1), (2), and (4 below]
10:20 am - 10:30 am	Break
11:30 am - 11:30 pm  	Concurrent Sessions [see (1), (2), (3) and (4)  below]
11:30 am - 12:00 pm	Box Lunch Plenary
Concurrent Sessions:		
1.  	Socio-Economics and Corporate Law Roundtable: (Room 140) Robert Ashford (Syracuse), Douglas Branston
	(Pittsburgh) Richard Buxbaum (California - Berkeley), Timothy Canova (New Mexico), Jesse Choper (California - Berkeley), Lynne Dallas
	(San Diego), Kent Greenfield (Boston College), Demetri Chanterelles (Assumption), Peter Kostant (Denver), May Kuykendall (Michigan
	State), Gregg Mark (Rutgers Newark), Theresa Maynard (Loyola - Angeles), Marleen O'Connor (Stetson), Terry O'Neill (Tulane),
	Margaret Sachs (Georgia), Philip Selznick (California - Berkeley), Dalia Tsuk (Arizona), and Cheryll Wade (Hofstra).
2.	Post Keynesian Law and Economics:   (Room 121)  Neil Buchanan (Michigan 2L), Timothy Canova (New Mexico), Johan
	Deprez (Whittier College), Mathew Forstater (University of Missouri - Kansas City)
3.	Binary Economics as a Distinct Paradigm: (Room 122) Robert Ashford (Syracuse), Richard Hattwick (Editor Journal of
	Socio-Economics), Stephen Kane (Kane and Associates), Demetri Chanterelles (Assumption College),  Katherine Kelso Balestreri (Bank
	of America), John Jones (The Macken Financial Group), Thomas Ulen (Illinois),  Morris Altman (Duke University)
Presentation Title:  	"Overview of Socio-economics and its Relation to Law"
Author:		Robert Ashford
		Syracuse University College of Law
Presentation to AALS Forum on 
"Socio-Economics:  What Is its place in Law Teaching?" 
Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law School
San Antonio, Texas, January, 1996 
    Robert Ashford 1996.
I	Introduction:  
II.	Socio-Economics:  Its Role In Law Practice, Teaching, Scholarship and Service
III.	Overview of Socio-Economics:
	1.	Core Disciplines:  economics, sociology, psychology, political science, biology, history, anthropology law and
		management
	2.	Factors
		1.	The whole self
		2	The connected self
		3.	The normative reality
		4.	The institutional reality
		5.	Focus on influence of the neoclassical paradigm
		6.	Paradigm-consciousness and paradigm neutrality
		7.	Positive and normative Science
			(a)  	positive:  scientific method, inductive and deductive reasoning,
				empirical evidence, falsification, replication, prediction, explanation
		   	(b)	normative:  value conscious, but largely value-neutral.
IV.	Relevance of Socio-Economics to Law, Teaching, Scholarship, and Service
	1.	Socio-Economics and the Ethical Rules and Codes Governing Lawyering 
		Competence, Candor, Confidences, Conflicts, Conscience
		In general:  By reason of their special role in society, 
			lawyers are held to standards above market ethics - fiduciaries
		1.	Competence:
			1.	Understanding clients and objectives
			2.	Ascertaining facts
			3.	Separating "is" from "ought"
			4.	Understanding others and the system
			5.	Providing holistic advice
			6.	Consulting other disciplines as necessary
			
		2.	Candor:  Keep clients informed and well-advised.
		3.	Duty to Improve Law not only for the benefit of clients but also for society.
		4.	Systemic synergy of the above.					
	
V.	Fulfilling these duties generally calls for a socio-economic approach to economic issues.
		1.	Ideas, theories, and paradigms should be judged in an even-handed manner with respect to their positive and normative value to clients according to consistently applied standards of falsification, predictive power, explanatory power, and normative considerations, with due attention to alternative approaches offered to address the same issues. 
		2.	Teachers have a duty to teach with a full-deck 
			--to recognize and address important criticism of ideas, concepts and paradigms advanced.
		3.	As applied to law and economics, professional conduct in practice and teaching requires an understanding of the limitations of neoclassical, Keynesian and other schools of economic thought, a sensitivity to their misapplication, and an openness to alternative theories and approaches.