Interdisciplinarity and expert knowledge: A case of “law and economics”

The author discusses some aspects of interdisciplinary cooperation between law and economics. She argues that this cooperation has its own social purpose to develop an expert knowledge which is to be used as a source for political reforming. The author claims that interdisciplinarity in social sciences should be considered as an essential condition for the development of this sort of knowledge. She analyzes some epistemological issues of interdisciplinary collaboration in law and economics, namely, whether it should be considered as a bilateral dialogue or as an attempt of methodological invasion of economics into the field of law. In this respect, the author discusses some arguments provided by the supporters of so-called “methodological ecumenism” and “methodological imperialism”. She argues that the expansion of the domain of economics should be understood as an attempt to create a unified social ontology. In this respect, she discusses the ideas of Gary Becker and Jack Hirschleifer who advocated the principle that “the social universe is written in the language of economics”. The author also considers the arguments by Richard Posner in support of a bilateral dialogue between economics and law. It is shown that Posner aimed to find epistemological links between “law and economics” and legal positivism. These links were supposed to prove the unconventional idea that cooperation with economics corresponds to the principles of legal positivism (namely, with the “pure theory of law” by Hans Kelsen). The author shows that Posner's idea is built upon a misunderstanding of “pure theory”, particularly, of the strict separation of sociology of law and “pure theory”. That is why the author assumes that Posner provided his arguments only for political (not epistemological) purpose (for “law and economics” legitimization). Despite the regular theoretical debates on the foundations of “law and economics”, this direction has already succeeded in the domain of expert knowledge. The author discusses two cases devoted to the problems of opiate and transplantation market regulation. The author considers these cases within the frame of expert knowledge which is to be used as a basis for political decisions. The author considers the specifics of expert knowledge in accordance with the ideas of Harry Collins and Robert Evans. She claims that expert knowledge in social sciences tends to be used as a guide for political reform - that is why it is supposed to be free from some relevant epistemological restrictions. In this respect, it seems to be reasonable to consider the issues of interdisciplinary cooperation in correspondence with the issues of expert knowledge.

Keywords

Authors

References