THE INTERRELATIONS BETWEEN LEGAL AND ECONOMIC PROCESSES: The considerations of Warren J. Samuels by Ihering Guedes Alcoforado
Esta nota antecipa uma futura sistematização do debate em torno da relação entre o processo econômico e o processo estabelecido durante os anos setenta e, ainda em curso, envolvendo dois grupos: de um lado, o grupo que adota um approach normativo que concebe o direito de uma perspectiva influenciado pelo direito natural, o que orienta os esforços de seus aderentes para a descoberta, e não para o processo de construção do direito, e cujos porta-vozes são James Buchanan, Peter Boettke e William Fischell. Do outro lado, estão os alinhados com uma visão positiva, no sentido de construtiva e que concebe o Direito como não essencialista e dissocia-o do Direito Natural, optando por dirigir seus esforços naõ no sentido de encontrar ou descobrir o Direito, preferindo orientá-los na busca de de uma compreensão do processo de construção do Direito, seja a partir da criação ou da mudança.
A opção por restringir essa nota decorre da necessidade de obter-se uma compreensão da referida relação entre o sistema econômico e legal, tendo como pano de fundo a questão propriedade. A qual será submetida a uma reflexão enquanto uma escolha tragica, na nossa abertura do III EBAED (Econtro Baiano de Análise Econômica do Direito) a ser realizado no dia 1o, de junho na Congregação da Faculdade de Direito da UFBA.
Em unção do acima exposto, esta nota consta desta introdução, mais duas partes e uma conclusão. Na primeira parte, detalhamos o posicionamento do approach positivo representado por Samuels e concluímos tecendo algumas considerações sobre as implicações da conntribuição de Warren Samuels no debate sobre a escolha do regime de propriedade, como uma escolha trágica.
- O Approach Positivo do Direito, ou o Direito como uma construção sociopolitica de Warren Samuels, para quem
“[…] law is not something transcendental and given but a matter of human social choice through pragmatic processes; that belief system and material interest influence law making and the law that is made influences belief system and material interests.” [SAMUELS, 2007:243]
E é a partir deste entendimento do Direito que ele propõe sua
“[…] defense of undertaking an objective, positivist analysis of law and
government as they exist in actual political economies (legal-economic nexuses) [SAMUELS, 2007:243]
E, texto seminal desta perspectiva é o de Samuels (1971), para quem
O qual ao longo do tempo foi se desdobrando, de forma a configurar-se como um entendimento próprio da relação do processo econômico com o legal, a partir entre outras, do papel performados pelos tribunais, entendido como parte do governo, e que tem como função ajustar os interesses conflitantes dos agentes econômicos em torno dos exercícios dos seus respectivos direitos, o qual pode ser sucintamente expresso na citação a seguir:
“ i) First, the courts use the legal process to influence the nature and structure of social life, including the promotion of economic development and the prevention of consolidations of social life deemed antagonistic to their vision of it. ii) Second, the courts determine which interest, of two (or more) competing interests, will receive the protection of government as property rights the other interest being left exposed. This determination later can be reversed or modified. iii) Third, by doing so the courts are not entering into or interfering with a process in which they have hitherto been absent, but are merely changing the interests to which they are giving their support. iv) Fourth, in performing the first two roles, the courts give effect to the power and belief system of those groups who have come to control, in one way or another, government policy, including that of the courts. v) Fifth, the courts govern the structure of decision-making power in the private
sector. vi) Sixth, by determining the structures of private power and therefore of decision making (Samuels 1972a) the courts influence which Pareto optimal solution to the problem of resource allocation is achieved by the economy; there is no single unique such solution, only solutions specific to the structure of rights which the courts, through their decisions, help create. The courts also thereby help govern the genesis and distribution of costs (Samuels and Schmid 1997) and the structure of the accumulation of capital. vii) Seventh, in performing all the foregoing roles, the courts are managing/participating in the process of working out socioeconomic change. […] [SAMUELS, 2007:244] (1)
O resultado do ponto de vista cognitivo é que as instituições legais importam para a performance da economia, donde no nosso entendimento se poder derivar sua relevância para os policymakers
“The foregoing is true whether one likes it or not that the courts, and government generally, willy nilly perform the indicated functions and/or protect the interests to which they (are used to) give its support. This is not a matter of ideology but a positive analysis of the roles of law in economic life and in working out interested parties’ attempts to influence and/or control policy. In other words, legal institutions matter.[ SAMUELS, 2007:244]
Mas que para tanto é necessário ter em conta a armadilha da crença mainstream e do modelo a ela associada e, para se livrar dela faz uma apresentação crítica da mesma, de forma a evidenciar a particularidades da sua visão:
“[…] a) One belief is that the economy is self-contained and self-subsistent, such that the legal system and the rest of government are exogenous.a.1)
My model understands the economy and polity, the latter inclusive of the legal system, each to be a matter of the legal-economic nexus. b) The second belief is that the existing economy, or some idealized conception of it, should have exclusive legitimate status and that, therefore, legal change of law should not exist.b.1) My model, being positivist, includes the obvious role of government participating in legal change, whether or not one likes it to do so. (We shall see below one reaction which,being normative, does not deny the actuality of legal change but would largely, ifnot totally, rule it out of existence.)” [SAMUELS, 2007:244/245]
Ou seja, o seu modelo toma como ponto de partida a relação da economy com a polity, mediado por um governo que participa na mudança legal, estabelecendo com objeto do policymaker a intervenção sobre o ambiente institucional em geral e, em especial sobre o instituto da propriedade.
2. O Instituto da Propriedade
Para Samuel a propriedade é considerada não só como um “a concept in practice”, mas principalmente como a “principal institution of society.”
A partir das suas observações ele constata que o
“It varies between jurisdictions, including nations, but that diversity does not lessen its importance. It is important for at least two critical purposes. First, it announces, defines and protects certain interests as property so long as its acquisition and use is lawful. Thus property is not protected because it is property; it is property because it is protected. For interests to be identified as property or as having property rights, means that a higher level of protection is accorded than rights not so designated. This protection is against other private parties and against the State. Nonetheless it is primarily the legislative and judicial agencies of the State which announce, define and protect property. Property is a social creation, largely by the State itself. The institution of property provides protection against the State but it is the State which determines that protection. Property is thus an element in a vast circle or parallelogram of interests protected as a certain type of right. Who is assigned property has putatively greater power than not having it; with the decision made by the State, those who control the interests to which government gives its protection as property determine the assignment.
Property and governance march hand in hand” [SAMUELS, 2007:248/249]
É neste contexto que ele chama atenção para a relevância da mudança legal (a mudança do direito por meio do direito) em geral e, em especial para a mudança decorrente da sentença judicial que tem por base um lítigio no âmbito do direito de propriedade:
“ . Legal change is change of the interests to which government
gives its protection, here as property rights. Legal change takes many forms; here I deal with a topic and a case to which litigation as to constitutionality has brought the takings clause, the equal protection clause, and the due process clause, plus the police power on which the Constitution is silent.[SAMUELS, 2007:249]
3. Uma nota conclusiva provisória
A compreensão do instituto da propriedade e da natureza da relação do processo econômico com o processo legal que constitui o núcleo duro do frame de Warren Samuel nos será útil como um elemento a componente do framework neo institucionalista das AED (Análise Econômica do Direito) que orientará nossa busca de uma compreensão da motivação econômica implícita na intervenção institucional da Coroa Portuguesa com a criação das sesmarias, de forma a poder evidenciar que ela foi orientada pela busca da eficiência alocativa e da eficiência dos investimentos.
NOTAS
(1) Samuels chama atenção que a linguagem e o modelo adotado nesta constatação foram antecipados e, portanto são adaptações ou derivações de Auerbach 1959 e Samuels 1972a,
BIBLIOGRAFIA
Auerbach, Carl A. (1959). Law and social change in the United States, UCLA Law Review, vol. 6, pp. 526–532. Reprinted in Carl A. Auerbach, Lloyd K. Garrison, Willard Hurst, & Samuel Mermin, The Legal Process (pp. 645–59). San Francisco, CA: Chandler, 1961
SAMUELS, Warren J. (1971). Interrelations between legal and economic processes. Journal of Law and Economics, 14, 435–450.
SAMUELS, Warren J. (1972a). Welfare economics, power and property. In G. Wunderlich & W. L. Gibson, Jr. (Eds.), Perspectives of property. University Park: Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources, Pennsylvania State University, 1972, pp. 61–148; reprinted in Samuels 1992, pp. 56–138.
SAMUELS, Warren J., (1972b). In defense of a positive approach to government as an economic variable. Journal of Law and Economics, 15, 453–459.
SAMUELS, Warren J., (1974a). An economic perspective on the compensation problem. Wayne Law Review, 21, 113–134.
Samuels, Warren J. (1974b). Pareto on policy. New York: Elsevier.
SAMUELS, Warren J., (Ed.) (1979). The economy as a system of power. Two volumes. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
SAMUELS, Warren J.,. (Ed.) (1979). The economy as a system of power. Two volumes. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
SAMUELS, Warren J.,. (1980). Survival and pareto optimality in public utility rate making. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 2, 528–540.
SAMUELS, Warren J., (1989a). The legal-economic Nexus. George Washington Law Review, 57(6), 1556– 1578.
SAMUELS, Warren J., (1989b). Fundamentals of the economic role of government. Westport: Greenwood Press.
SAMUELS, Warren J., (1993). The growth of Government. Critical Review, 7, 445–460.
SAMUELS, Warren J., (1996a). Reader’s guide to John R. Commons, legal foundations of capitalism, Research in the history of economic thought and methodology, Archival Supplement 5, pp. 1–61.
SAMUELS, Warren J., (1996b). My work as an historian of economic thought. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 18, 37–75.
SAMUELS, Warren J.,. (1997). The concept of ‘Coercion’ in economics. In Warren J. Samuels, Steven G. Medema & A. Allan Schmid (Eds.), The economy as a process of valuation (pp. 129–207). Lyme, NH: Edward Elgar.
SAMUELS, Warren J.,. (2001). Some problems in the use of language in economics. Review of Political Economy, 13(1), 91–100.
SAMUELS, Warren J., (2002a). Economics, governance and law: Essays on theory and policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
SAMUELS, Warren J., (2002b). The rule of law and the capture and use of government in a world of inequality, in Samuels 2002a, pp. 61–79.
SAMUELS, Warren J., (2004a). The status of the status quo: The Buchanan colloquium. Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 22A, 219–233.
SAMUELS, Warren J.,. (2004b). The problem of the status of the status quo: Some comments. Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 22A, 235–256.
SAMUELS, Warren J., (2005a). The role of government in the history of political economy: The 2004 HOPE Conference Interpreted and Critiqued by the General Discussant. In Steven G. Medema & Peter
Boettke (Eds.), The role of government in the history of economic thought (pp. 393–423). Annual Supplement to Volume 37, History of Political Economy, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
SAMUELS, Warren J.,. (2005b). Laissez faire encyclopedia of economic sociology (pp. 387–389). London: Routledge.
SAMUELS, Warren J., (2007a) The interrelations between legal and economic
processes: a consideration of the reactions IN Constit Polit Econ (2007) 18:243–285
SAMUELS, Warren J.,. (2007b). Poletown and Hathcock: An essay on some problems in the language of the law. In Warren J. Samuels (Ed.), The legal-economic Nexus (pp. 175–252). London: Routledge.
SAMUELS, Warren J.,Medema, Steven G., & Schmid, A. Allan. (1997). The economy as a process of valuation. Lyme, NH: Edward Elgar.
SAMUELS, Warren J., & Mercuro, Nicholas (1979). The role and resolution of the compensation principle in society: Part one–The role. Research in Law and Economics, 1, 157–194.
SAMUELS, Warren J.,, & Mercuro, Nicholas (1980). The role and resolution of the compensation principle in society: Part two–The resolution. Research in Law and Economics, 2, 103–128
SAMUELS, Warren J., & Nicholas Mercuro (Eds.) (1999). The fundamental interrelationship between government and property. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
SAMUELS, Warren J.,, & A. Allan Schmid. (1997). The concept of cost in economics. In Warren J. Samuels, Steven G. Medema, & A. Allan Schmid (1997). The Economy as a Process of Valuation (pp. 208–
298). Lyme, NH: Edward Elgar