Legislating for Economic Sclerosis: Are Lawyers a Baleful Influence on Growth Rates?

Abstract

William Easterly, an ex-World Bank economist and widely respected growth theorist, in recently noting that skilled individuals may elect to pursue occupations that redistribute income rather than enhance growth, referred to 'the somewhat whimsical piece of evidence … that economies with lots of lawyers grow more slowly than economies with lots of engineers'. The remark alluded to an assertion by the Bush-Quayle camp during the 1992 Presidential campaign that too many lawyers were prejudicial to US economic growth, and sparked a heated debate that was played out in the Wall Street Journal and a number of academic journals at the time. A decade later, Easterly's rejoinder has prompted us to examine the view that occupational capture (the capture of talent by particular occupations) can contribute to economic stagnation, by revisiting the notion of lawyers as negative externalities to the growth process. Copyright WWZ and Helbing & Lichtenhahn Verlag AG 2004.

Creating Quality Courts

“… 5 Much of the research is summarized in a symposium (Debate 1992). A failed attempt to replicate the original negative findings is presented in Cameron and Thorpe (2004). …”

Why do we need a cultural economics? History and development of the field

“…That is, there are some parasitic sectors of the economy which do not produce 'real' output. The idea of a parasitic drag on the economy also rears its head in some econometric work on the burdening of the economy by litigation and excess numbers of lawyers (see Cameron and Thorpe 2004). This charge has not been levied at the cultural sector, but the withdrawal of subsidy to it, from governments, in difficult macroeconomic times as a lower priority than the economy of the 'real' productive sector, is imbued with some elements of it.…”