Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:45:32.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quand l’économie renouvelle le droit : l’exemple de la justification de l’obligation alimentaire envers l’ex-époux en cas de divorce

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2016

Myriam Doriat-Duban  and
Cécile Bourreau-Dubois
Myriam Doriat-Duban
Affiliation:
Professeur de sciences économiques BETA/UMR 7522-Université de Lorraine, [email protected]
Cécile Bourreau-Dubois
Affiliation:
Professeur de sciences économiques BETA/UMR 7522-Université de Lorraine, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the early 1990s, a number of American legal thinkers began to question the justification for retaining a support obligation between former spouses when they divorced, in a society where adultery is no longer penalized in divorce law and women have become more financially autonomous. They found the answers in economic analysis. This article examines the two main approaches that drew the attention of legal writers. The first derives from the economy of the family and is based on the principle of efficiency. The second draws on the economy of contracts and is concerned with the nature of the relationship between the spouses. This attention to economic analysis is novel, from the European standpoint, because we see no evidence of that approach in the European literature dealing with the legal treatment of the economic inequalities between former spouses at the time of divorce.

Résumé

Au tournant des années 1990, un certain nombre de juristes américains se sont interrogés sur les justifications du maintien d’une obligation alimentaire entre ex-époux en cas de divorce, dans une société où l’adultère n’est plus sanctionné par le droit du divorce et où les femmes sont devenues plus autonomes financièrement. C’est dans l’analyse économique qu’ils ont trouvé ces justifications. Cet article revient sur les deux principales approches qui ont retenu l’attention des juristes. La première est issue de l’économie de la famille et repose sur le principe d’efficience. La seconde est tirée de l’économie des contrats et s’intéresse à la nature des relations entre les deux conjoints. Cette attention portée à l’analyse économique est originale du point de vue européen, car l’on ne trouve pas de traces d’une telle démarche dans la doctrine européenne portant sur le traitement juridique des inégalités économiques entre ex-époux au moment du divorce.

Keywords

divorceefficiencyspecializationcontractsupport obligationdivorceefficiencespécialisationcontratobligation alimentaire
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 31 , Special Issue 2: Les transferts économiques entre ex-époux à la suite du divorce : logiques alimentaire, compensatoire, indemnitaire? / Financial Transfers Between Spouses on Divorce: Logics of Need, Restitution, or Compensation? , August 2016 , pp. 203 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association / Association Canadienne Droit et Société 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Références

Becker, G. S. 1973. A theory of marriage: Part I. The Journal of Political Economy 81 (4): 813–46.Google Scholar
Becker, G. S. 1974. A theory of marriage: Part II. The Journal of Political Economy 82 (2): S11–S26.Google Scholar
Becker, G. S., Landes, E. et Michael, R. T.. 1977. An economic analysis of marital instability. Journal of Political Economy 85 (6): 1141–88.Google Scholar
Bergmann, B. 1981. The economic risks of being a housewife. American Economic Review 71 (2): 81–86.Google Scholar
Bolin, K. 1994. The marriage contract and efficient rules for spousal support. International Review of Law and Economics 14 (4): 493–502.Google Scholar
Bouabdallah, S., et Sayn, I.. 2016. Les justifications de la prestation compensatoires dans le discours juridique français. Canadian Journal of Law and Society 31 (2): 21 pp.Google Scholar
Bourreau-Dubois, C., et Doriat-Duban, M.. 2013. The economic grounds of alimony: Evidence from French divorce court decisions. Journal of Legal Economics 19 (2): 1–23.Google Scholar
Brinig, M. 1993. The Law and Economics of No-Fault Divorce. 26 FAM. L.Q. 453, 456–58.Google Scholar
Brinig, M., et Crafton, S.. 1994. Marriage and opportunism. Journal of Legal Studies 23 (2): 869–94.Google Scholar
Carbone, J. 1990. Economics, feminism, and the reinvention of alimony: A reply to Ira Ellman. Vanderbilt Law Review 1463: 1463–1501.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. 1987. Marriage, divorce and quasi-rents: or I gave him the best years of my life. Journal of Legal Studies 16: 267–272.Google Scholar
Dandoy, N., Granet, F. et Favier, Y.. 2016. Les logiques implicites de la prestation compensatoire : approche comparée de quelques droits européen. Canadian Journal of Law and Society 31 (2): 22 pp.Google Scholar
Dnes, A. 1999. Marriage Contracts, dans Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, ed. Bouckaert, B. et De Geest, G.. (Cheltenham : Edward Elgar, 2000), 864–885.Google Scholar
Ellman, I. 1989. The theory of alimony, California Law Review 77 (1): 1–81.Google Scholar
Fethke, C. 1984. An economic model of asset division in the dissolution of marriage. AEA Papers and Proceedings 74 (2): 265–270.Google Scholar
Geddes, R., et Zak, P.. 2002. The rule of one-third. Journal of Legal Studies 31 (1): 119–37.Google Scholar
Kraft, K., et Stebler, P.. 2006. An economic analysis of financial support after divorce. International Game Theory Review 8 (4): 561–79.Google Scholar
Landes, E. 1978. Economics of alimony. Journal of Legal Studies 7 (1): 35–63.Google Scholar
McElroy, M. B., et Horney, M. J.. 1990. Nash-bargained household decisions: Reply. International Economic Review 31 (1): 237–42.Google Scholar
Parkman, A. 2000. Good Intentions Gone Awry: No-Fault Divorce and the American Family, Lanham : Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Rogerson, C. 2004. The Canadian law of spousal support. Family Law Quarterly 38 (1): 69–110.Google Scholar
Sayn, I. 2016. Mesurer la compensation des inégalités économiques des époux au moment du divorce. Des critères légaux de décisions à la construction d’outils d’aide à la décision, Canadian Journal of Law and Society 31 (2): 23 pp.Google Scholar
Singer, J. B. 1994. Alimony and efficiency: The gendered costs and benefits of the economic justification for alimony. The Georgetown Law Journal 82: 2423–60.Google Scholar
Tsaoussis, A. 2004. Protecting homemakers’ marriage-specific investments under no-fault divorce: A model for restructuring alimony in civil law countries. American Law and Economics Review 6 (1): 217–47.Google Scholar