112 Yale L.J. 829 (2003)

Modern economic analysis of contract law began about thirty years ago and, many scholars would agree, has become the dominant academic style of contract theory. Traditional doctrinal analysis exerts less influence than it did prior to 1970 and enjoys little prestige. Philosophical work on the nature of promising has captured some attention, but petered out in the 1980s, with little to show for the effort other than arid generalizations about the nature of promising. Academic critiques from the left no longer stir up excitement as they did twenty years ago. Scholarship influenced by cognitive psychology has so far produced few insights. Only economic analysis seems to be on solid footing.

One way to validate a field's claims is to look at its history. Economically oriented scholars writing in the early 1970s had foundational insights, and then over time subsequent writers have criticized and refined them; because these refinements were derived from common premises, there has been a sense of forward movement in the subject, of the building of an increasingly sophisticated consensus. Although critics of economic analysis deride its scientific aspirations, the steady accumulation of insights over time resembles scientific progress. Doctrinal, philosophical, and critical scholarship by contrast has been static. The authors agree or disagree, and about the same things, as much today as they did twenty or thirty years ago.

Yet there are grounds for concern about the economic analysis of contract law. Careful students of its history know that the sense of convergence ended years ago; in the last ten years, theory has become divergent, and impasses have emerged. The simple models that dominated discussion prior to the 1990s do not predict observed contract doctrine. The more complex models that emerged in the 1980s and dominated discussion in the 1990s failed to predict doctrine or relied on variables that could not, as a practical matter, be measured. As a result, the predictions of these models are indeterminate, and the normative recommendations derived from them are implausible.

For these reasons, I will argue that economic analysis has failed to produce an "economic theory" of contract law, and does not seem likely to be able to do so. By this, I mean that the economic approach does not explain the current system of contract law, nor does it provide a solid basis for criticizing and reforming contract law. This is not to say that the economic approach has not produced any wisdom, but that the nature of its accomplishment turns out to be subtle and will become clear only after an extended discussion.

This Essay has two purposes: to document the failures of economic models to explain contract law or to justify reform, and to provide an explanation for these failures. The explanation centers on the difficulty of developing a model of contractual behavior that can be tested and that does not make unreasonable assumptions about the cognitive abilities of contractual parties.

At the outset, a few comments must be made in order to avoid some possible misunderstandings of the argument. First, I will not argue that some other approach to contract law is superior to the economic approach, nor that economic analysis should be abandoned. If a moral must be extracted from the discussion, it is skepticism about how much additional value economics has to offer to understanding contract law today.

Second, I do not make claims about the value of economic analysis for understanding other areas of law. Indeed, my critique rests on empirical and methodological judgments about the contracts literature, judgments that do not necessarily apply to, say, torts or property. Nor do I take a position in this Essay on controversies over the welfarist foundations of economic analysis.

Third, I want to avoid making general arguments about what counts as a good theory. One might argue that any methodology that yields surprises or insights about a familiar topic is valuable, and those surprises or insights should be counted as theories. To avoid these philosophical issues, I will focus on the original aspirations of the economic analysis of contract law: to provide an explanation of existing legal rules, and to provide a basis for criticizing or defending those rules.

Finally, I want to avoid debates about what counts as "economic analysis of contract law" by stipulating that it did not exist before 1970. This is, of course, artificial. Many earlier scholars, including Holmes, Llewellyn, Hale, and Fuller, used economic analysis in the sense that from time to time they would assume that contracting parties are rational and then speculate about how different legal rules would affect these parties' incentives. From a modern perspective, however, their insights seem banal, and that is because post-1970 economic analysis is more systematic and careful. The interesting question is whether the post-1970 commitment to methodological individualism and the other premises of the rational actor approach provide the basis for a theory that can be used to explain or criticize contract law.

My plan is as follows. Part I describes various results from the economic analysis of contract law and compares them with the legal doctrine. In virtually every case, models make either false or indeterminate predictions about the doctrines of contract law. Part II discusses the closely related literature on incomplete contracts, a literature that attempts to predict the content of contracts, as opposed to contract law. The separation of these two bodies of scholarship, now gradually disappearing, is an accident of history, but useful for seeing the general problems with the economic project. Part III speculates about what went wrong with economic analysis and argues that an ambiguity at the heart of the concept of transaction costs is to blame. Part IV looks at trends in contracts scholarship. Part V criticizes alternative approaches to contract theory.

112 Yale L.J. 903 (2003)

In his thoughtful essay, Eric Posner asks whether economic analysis has failed contract law and suggests that it has. Not surprisingly, I hold a different opinion. That is, while I agree with much of what Posner says about particular economic findings, I disagree about what it would mean for economics to "fail" (or, for that matter, what it would mean to succeed).

More specifically, Posner argues that economic analysis has failed in two respects, both as a descriptive theory and as a normative one. Descriptively, Posner says, economics fails to predict existing doctrine: Either existing doctrine differs from the rules that economics identifies as efficient, or economics is too indeterminate to identify the most efficient rules. And normatively, Posner says that this same indeterminacy also prevents economics from making any suggestions for the reform of contract law.

On my view, though, the descriptive and normative issues (and what constitutes "failure" for each of these purposes) must be treated separately. The descriptive claims that might be made for economics are largely uninteresting, as most scholars have implicitly recognized. I will speak briefly about those claims in Part I of this Response, but the bulk of my comments--Part II--will concern the normative claims. To the extent that normative analysis is at issue, I am much less troubled by indeterminacy of the sort that Posner describes. I then address, in Part III, the very different demands of what might be called an "interpretive" theory of contract law.

In short, my differences with Posner are largely over the question of "what counts as a good theory" of contract. Posner wisely declined to address that question--wisely, I say, because a full discussion could easily have tripled the length of his essay. My goal in this Response, though, is to put that issue back on the table, for this is where most of our differences can be found.

112 Yale L.J. 961 (2003)

In 1971, Congress repealed the Emergency Detention Act, part of the Internal Security Act of 1950, by writing into 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) the provision that "[n]o citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." Enacted amid mounting public pressure during the Vietnam War, § 4001(a) sought to "restrict the . . . detention of citizens of the United States to situations in which statutory authority for their incarceration exists." At the time, it represented a legislative response to the outrage over the executive internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, detentions carried out pursuant only to a presidential order. Today, § 4001(a) represents a bar to the Bush Administration's current policy of detaining U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants," absent congressional authorization, without charges and without access to counsel or the courts.

This Comment analyzes that policy in light of the current force of § 4001(a) and Howe v. Smith, the 1981 Supreme Court decision that embraced an expansive reading of the antidetention statute. Since, under Howe, § 4001(a) applies to all U.S. citizens regardless of "enemy combatant" status, the only remaining issue is whether Congress authorized the detentions in question. After tracing the history of § 4001(a), this Comment evaluates, and finds inadequate, the Administration's various justifications for the detention of U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants." The analysis concludes that, in the absence of clear congressional authorization, the detention policy not only violates § 4001(a) but also shows complete disregard for the deeper purpose behind this provision's enactment and the fundamental separation of powers principles manifested therein.