Abstract
Abstract The world has more than 200 states. Many states are federations and hence consist of multiple jurisdictions. Seemingly there is thus ample room for a social science approach to comparative law. In this perspective, each legal order produces a data point. Variance in the solutions adopted by different legal orders is used as evidence that a certain legal design causes greater justice, better political stability, higher welfare, or more equity. The results could motivate the strife for legal betterment, by the way of legal transplants. This Article cautions against the dangers inherent in this empirical enterprise. In a nutshell, the danger results from the fact that mere correlation (some jurisdictions are associated with some outcomes) is not causation (a difference in legal design is responsible for the difference in outcomes). Yet for choosing between alternative legal regimes, causation would be critical. The Article explains why comparative law is a conspicuously challenging source of empirical evidence. It discusses possible solutions.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
