Ciencias del comportamiento y derecho: del realismo jurídico al behavioral law and economics
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18800/derechopucp.202601.005Palavras-chave:
Ciencias del comportamiento y derecho, Realismo jurídico, Métodos científicos en el derecho, Economía del comportamiento, Análisis económico del derechoResumo
El presente artículo examina las tensiones y la evolución en la definición y las características del campo de estudio en el que se integran el derecho y las ciencias del comportamiento. Aunque en la literatura suele asumirse que se trata de un campo nuevo, vinculado al reciente auge del behavioral law and economics, sus orígenes se remontan al realismo jurídico y a la propia tradición doctrinal del derecho. A partir de estos antecedentes, el artículo rastrea el desarrollo del debate en las últimas seis décadas y sostiene que dicho campo ha evolucionado en torno a tres rasgos característicos: el uso de métodos científicos para estudiar el derecho en la práctica, el reconocimiento de una pluralidad de ciencias del comportamiento que se articulan con el derecho, y la necesidad de diálogo entre juristas y científicos del comportamiento. Sobre esta base, se propone una definición contemporánea del campo, se destaca su diferenciación frente a otras aproximaciones —como el análisis económico del derecho y el behavioral law and economics— y se reflexiona sobre algunas de sus proyecciones futuras.
Downloads
Referências
Allen, A. (1978). Law and. Yale Law Journal, 87(5), 989-1011. https://doi.org/10.2307/795759
Berns, W. (1963). Law and behavioral science. Law and Contemporary Problems, 28(1), 185-212. https://doi.org/10.2307/1190729
Brest, P. (2002). Empirical legal realism: A new social scientific assessment of law and human behavior. Northwestern University Law Review, 97(3), 1075-1076.
Calabresi, G. (2023). Sobre el derecho y economía y el análisis económico del derecho: El rol del abogado. En G. Calabresi, El futuro del derecho y economía: Ensayos para la reflexión y la memoria (pp. 31-76). Palestra.
Coase, R. H. (2013 [1960]). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 56(4), 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1086/674872
Fahr, S., & Ojemann, R. (1962). The use of social and behavioral science knowledge. Iowa Law Review, 48(1), 59-75.
Friedman, L., & Macaulay, S. (1977). Law and behavioral sciences (2.a ed.). Bobbs-Merrill.
Galanter, M. (1974). Why the “haves” come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change. Law & Society Review, 9(1), 95-160. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053023
García-Tejeda, E. (2023). Behavioral law and economics: A complementary approach to the standard perspective. Revista Derecho del Estado, (57), 109-134. https://doi.org/10.18601/01229893.n57.05
Goldberg, S. (1994). Culture clash: Law and science in America. Nueva York University Press.
Grundstein, N. (1967). The relevance of behavioral science for law. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 19(1), 87-97.
Haack, S. (2009). Irreconcilable differences: The troubled marriage of science and law. Law and Contemporary Problems, 72(1), 1-24.
Holmes, O. W. Jr. (1897). The path of the law. Harvard Law Review, 10(8), 457-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/1322028
Holmes, O. W. (1899). Law in science and science in law. Harvard Law Review, 12(7), 443-463. https://doi.org/10.2307/1321177
Hovenkamp, H. (1991). Legal policy and the endowment effect. The Journal of Legal Studies, 20(2), 225-247. https://doi.org/10.1086/467886
Hovenkamp, H. (2000). Knowledge about welfare: Legal realism and the separation of law and economics. Minnesota Law Review, 84(4), 805-862.
Jolls, C., Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, R. H. (1998). A behavioral approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Review, 50(5), 1471-1550. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229304
Jones, O. D., & Brosnan, S. F. (2008). Law, biology, and property: A new theory of the endowment effect. William & Mary Law Review, 49(2), 1935-1990.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325-1348. https://doi.org/10.1086/261737
Kaplan, A. (1967). Behavioral science and the law. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 19(1), 57-70.
Kelman, M. (2002). Law and behavioral science: Conceptual overviews. Northwestern University Law Review, 97(3), 1347-1392.
Kelsen, H. (1941). The law as a specific social technique. University of Chicago Law Review, 9(1), 75-97. https://doi.org/10.2307/1597151
Korobkin, R. (2003). The endowment effect and legal analysis. Northwestern University Law Review, 97(3), 1227-1293.
Korobkin, R., & Ulen, T. S. (2000). Law and behavioral science: Removing the rationality assumption from law and economics. California Law Review, 88(4), 1051-1144. https://doi.org/10.2307/3481255
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services [edición revisada]. Russell Sage Foundation.
Llewellyn, K. N. (1931). Some realism about realism: Responding to Dean Pound. Harvard Law Review, 44(8), 1222-1264. https://doi.org/10.2307/1332182
Macaulay, S. (2020). Law and the behavioral sciences: Is there any there there? En D. Campbell (ed.), Stewart Macaulay: Selected works (pp. 459-493). Springer.
Milon, A., & Bouvet, R. (2019). Scientific uncertainty in courts: A France–Germany comparative perspective on litigation surrounding hepatitis B vaccination. European Journal of Health Law, 26(1), 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718093-12261414
Monroy, D. (2023). La escuela del análisis económico neoclásico. En D. Monroy (ed.), Derecho económico: Fundamentos y escuelas (pp. 235-337). Universidad Externado de Colombia.
Murray, M. D. (2012). The great recession and the rhetorical canons of law and economics. Loyola Law Review, 58(3), 615-654. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2012955
Posner, R. A. (1972). Volume one of The Journal of Legal Studies—An afterword. Journal of Legal Studies, 1(2), 437-440. https://doi.org/10.1086/467490
Ramello, G. B., & Voigt, S. (2020). Let the data tell their own story: A tribute to Ted Eisenberg. European Journal of Law and Economics, 49, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-020-09641-x
Shapiro, F. R. (2021). The most-cited legal scholars revisited. The University of Chicago Law Review, 88(7), 1595-1618.
Shapiro, F. R., & Pearse, M. (2012). The most-cited law review articles of all time. Michigan Law Review, 110(8), 1483-1520.
Stephenson, M. (2009). Legal realism for economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(2), 191-211. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.23.2.191
Tallacchini, M. (2005). Before and beyond the precautionary principle: Epistemology of uncertainty in science and law. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 207(2), 645-651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2004.12.029
Thaler, R. H. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(80)90051-7
Thaler, R. H. (2016). Misbehaving: The making of behavioral economics. W. W. Norton & Company.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness [edición revisada]. Penguin Books.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
Ulen, T. S. (2014). Behavioral law and economics: Law, policy, and science. Supreme Court Economic Review, 21(1), 5-42. https://doi.org/10.1086/675264
Weston, T. (1992). Approximate truth and scientific realism. Philosophy of Science, 59(1), 53-74. https://doi.org/10.1086/289654
Yegge, R. (1968). Law and society association: President’s report. Law & Society Review, 2(3), 349-351. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0023921600014560
Zeina, A., Islan, W., Calvo-Gonzalez, O., & Dalton, A. (2019). Behavioral science around the world: Profiles of 10 countries. World Bank Group. https://apo.org.au/node/223781
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2026 Daniel Alejandro Monroy Cely
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
