Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:39:00.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do Lawyers Impair Economic Growth?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Charles R. Epp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The large U.S. legal profession hurts economic productivity in the United States and our economic competitiveness abroad according to a common claim A number of studies support that claim, but they suffer from serious flaws. I reexamine the hypothesis that large lawyer populations impair economic growth and suggest that it lacks theoretical and empirical support. The hypothesis depends on false assumptions about the organizational capability and interest of the legal profession; the empirical research in sup port of the hypothesis depends on flawed lawyer data, unusual combinations of high lawyer populations and low economic growth in one or two countries, and the unjustified use of lawyer population figures from the 1980s in analyses of economic growth prior to that period. I present the results of research on lawyer populations and economic growth among the US. states and in a sample of countries, correcting for the worst flaws of past research The results do not support the claim that large lawyer populations impair aggregate economic growth The analysis is not intended as the final answer on this important question but rather as an encouragement for a more sophisticated understanding of the role of lawyers in late modern economies.

Type
DEBATE: Do Lawyers Impair Economic Growth?
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , Fall 1992 , pp. 585 - 623
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 1992 

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

1 President's Council on Competitiveness, Agenda for Cid justice Reform (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1991) (“President's Council”).Google Scholar

2 Datta, Samar K. & Nugent, Jeffrey B., “Adversary Activities and Per Capita Income Growth,” 14 World Dev 1457 (1986); Laband, David N. & Sophocleus, John P., “The Social Cost of Rent-Seeking: First Estimates,” 58 Pub. Choice 269 (1988); Magee, Stephen P., Brock, William A., & Leslie Young, “The Invisible Foot and the Waste of Nations: Lawyers as Negative Externalities,” in Black Hole Tariffs and Endogenous Policy Theory: Political Economy in General Equilibrium (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) (“Magee, et al., ‘Invisible Foot’“); Murphy, Kevin M., Andrei Shleifer, & Robert Vishny, “The Allocation of Talent: Implications for Growth,” 106 Q.I. Econ 503 (1991); Magee, Stephen P., “The Optimum Number of Lawyers” (presented at the Western Economic Association Meetings, Seattle, 2 July 1991) (on file with author) (“Magee, ‘Optimum Number’“); Magee, Stephen P.,”The Optimum Number of Lawyers: Cross-national Estimates,” presented at Law School, University of Wisconsin, 28 Feb. 1992 (on file with author) (“Magee, ‘Cross-national Estimates' “); Magee, Stephen P., “How Many Lawyers Ruin an Economy?” (Letter to the Editor), Wall St. J. 24 Sept. 1992, $ A, p. 17 (“Magee, Letter”).Google Scholar

3 One dissent, a thorough critique of early research on the question, is Cross, Frank B., “The First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Economists: An Empirical Evaluation of the Effect of Lawyers on the United States Economy and Political System,” 70 Tex. L Reu.645 (1992).Google Scholar

4 Magee, Letter.Google Scholar

5 Magee, “Optimum Number;”id.“Cross-national Estimates”; Magee et al, “Invisible Foot.” In this article, I take the somewhat unusual step of critiquing work that has not been published other than through presentations. I take that step because Magee's research has gained an unusually high level of publicity. One indication of that level is that a Lexis search for his name within 25 words of “lawyer” produces more than 60 citations within the last two years.Google Scholar

6 Cross, 70 Tex. L Rev. Google Scholar

7 Olson, Mancur, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Goups (New York: Schocken, 1965) (“Olson, Logic”); id, The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Sod Rigidities (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1982)(“Olson, Rise and Decline”).Google Scholar

8 Datta & Nugent, 14 World Dev.; Magee et al, “Invisible Foot.”Google Scholar

9 Magee, “Optimum Number;”id, “Cross-national Estimates”; Cross, 70 Tex. L Rev. Google Scholar

10 Magee's proposal, probably made tongue-in-cheek, was advanced during a debatewith Joe Jamail at the University of Texas, and reported in the news article “School's Out—until 2004,” in the Texas Lawyer, 6 April 1992, at 47. Although probably less than serious, the proposal suggests that Professor Magee views lawyer populations as a cause of the economic problems associated with rent seeking, rather than reflective of the level of rent seeking.Google Scholar

11 Olson, Logic; id, Rise and Decline. Google Scholar

12 Olson's theory is controversial. Critics have attacked it for its strained view of individual self-interest and rationality and for its failure to recognize that differences in the political and economic structures of societies produce differences in the level and type of interest organization. Both criticisms suggest that the “logic” of collective action is very far from empirical experience. The critics include Wilson, James Q., Political Organizations(New York: Basic Books, 1974); Terry Moe, The Organization of Interests (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980); and Wilson, Graham K., Interest Goups (Cambridge: Basil Blackwell,1990) (“Wilson, Interest Groups”). In addition, careful empirical tests of the theory find nosupporting evidence; see Virginia Gray & David Lowery, “Interest Group Politics and Economic Growth in the U.S. States,” 82 Am. Pol Sci. Reb. 109 (1988); Clark Nardinelli, Wallace, Myles S., & Warner, John T., “Explaining Differences in State Growth: Catching up versus Olson,” 52 Public Choice 201 (1987).Google Scholar

13 On the rapid growth of the U.S. legal profession, see Abel, Richard L., “The Transformation of the American Legal Profession,” 20 Law B Soc'y Rev. 7 (1986); Curran, Barbara A., “American Lawyers in the 1980s: A Profession in Transition,” 20 Law B Soc'y Rev.19 (1986); Halliday, Terence C., “Six Score Years and Ten: Demographic Transitions in the American Legal Profession 1850-1980,” 20 Law & Soc'y Rev. 53 (1986); and Sander, Richard H. & E. Douglas Williams, “Why Are There So Many Lawyers? Perspectives on a Turbulent Market,” 14 Law & Soc. Inquiry 431 (1989). Lawyer populations in other countries have grown rapidly as well; see chapters in Abel, Richard L. & Philip S. C. Lewis, eds.,Luwyen in Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988).Google Scholar

14 The legal profession has struggled to overcome obstacles to collective action andhas been more successful in doing so at the state level than at the national level. Some 33 states have “unified bars,” requiring bar membership in the state and national bar associations by all lawyers practicing within the state. That inclusiveness, as Halliday shows, provides some state bar associations with resources but also with obstacles to concerted action. Halliday, Terence C., Beyond Monopoly: Lawyers, State Crises, and Professional Empowemtent(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987). According to Halliday's analysis, many localand state bar associations are highly organized, and many work effectively on some issues;but they are most capable of acting collectively on issues of a highly technical nature, primarily related to encouraging the state to follow fair procedures and the rule of law in implementing policy goals, encouraging the adoption of uniform laws among the states, and rationalizing the process of justice. While critics might conclude that those goals serve the pecuniary interests of the legal profession, it does not follow that the goals will impair the economic performance of the private sector. Indeed, the more plausible conclusion is that procedural reform, uniformity of laws, and efficiency in the justice system will diminish somedrags on economic performance; see also Holliday at 365–68.Google Scholar

15 Magee, “Cross-national Estimates” (cited in note 2); d., “How Many Lawyers Ruinan Economy?”Wall St. J., 24 Sept. 1992.Google Scholar

16 Berg, Larry L., Green, Justin J., & Schmidhauser, John R., “Judicial Regime Stability and the Voting Behavior of Lawyer Legislators,” 49 None Dame Law. 1012 (1974); DavidBrady, Schmidhauser, John R., & Berg, Larry L., “House Lawyers and Support for the Supreme Court,” 35 I. Politics 724 (1973); Derge, David R., “The Lawyer as Decision-Makerin the American State Legislature,” 21 I. Politics 408 (1959); Green, Justin J., John R.Schmidhauser, Berg, Larry L., & David Brady, “Lawyers in Congress: A New Look at Some Old Assumptions,” 26 W. Pol Q. 440 (1973); Green, Justin J., Schmidhauser, John R., & Berg, Larry L., “Variations in Congressional Response to the Warren and Burger Courts,”23 Emory LJ. 725 (1974); Schmidhauser, John R. & Berg, Larry L., The Supreme Court and Congress: Conflict and Interaction, 1945-1968 (New York: Free Press, 1972).Google Scholar

17 Green et aL, 26 W. Pol Q. 451.Google Scholar

18 Hain, Paul L. & Piereson, James E., “Lawyers and Politics Revisited: Structural Advantages of Lawyer-Politicians.” 19 Am. J. Pol Sci. 41 (1975); Miller, Mark C., “Lawyers and American Politics: A Comparative Perspective” (presented at the 1992 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, 3-6 September 1992); Pedersen, Mogens N., “Lawyers in Politics: The Danish Folketing and United States Legislatures,” in Patterson, Samuel C. & Wahlke, John C., eds., Comparative Legislative Behavior: Frontiers of Research (New York: John Wiley, 1972) (“Pedersen, ‘Lawyers in Politics' “).Google Scholar

19 Olson, Logic 142–43 (cited in note 7); emphasis in original.Google Scholar

20 California Medical Association & California Hospital Association, Report on the Medical Insurance Feasibility Study (1977); Harvard Medical Practice Study, Patients, Doctors, and Lawyers: Medical Injury, Malpractice Litigation, and Patient Compensation in New York (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1990); Pocincki, Leon S. et al., The Incidence of latrogenic injuries, Secretary's Commission on Medical Malpractice (Washington: US. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare, 1973); Stephen Zuckerman et al., “Information on Malpractice: A Review of Empirical Research on Major Policy Issues,” 49(2) Law & Contemp. Prob. 85 (Spring 1986).Google Scholar

21 Hensler, Deborah R. et al., Compensation for Accidental Injuries in the United States (Santa Monica, Cal.: Institute for Civil Justice, RAND, 1991); Miller, Richard E. & Austin Sarat, “Grievances, Claims, and Disputes: Assessing the Adversary Culture,” 15 Law & Soc'y Rev. 525 (1980-81).Google Scholar

22 Saks, Michael J., “Do We Really Know Anything about the Behavior of the Tort Litigation System-and Why Not?” 140 U. Pa. L Rev. 1147, 1183 (1992).Google Scholar

23 Cross, 70 Tex. L. Rev. 665-66 (cited in note 3).Google Scholar

24 Id ar 663-66.Google Scholar

25 Id at 664.Google Scholar

26 Marc Galanter & Joel Rogers, “A Transformation of American Business Disputing? Some Preliminary Observations,” Disputes Processing Research Program, Working Paper DPRP 10-3 (Institute for Legal Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1991).Google Scholar

27 Id. Google Scholar

28 Wilson, Interest Groups (cited in note 12), and id, Business and Politics (Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House, 1985).Google Scholar

29 Gilson, Ronald J., “Value Creation by Business Lawyers: Legal Skills and Asset Pricing,” 94 Yale. L. J. 239 (1984).Google Scholar

30 Bok, Derek C., “A Flawed System of Law Practice and Training,” 33 J. Legal Educ.570 (1983); Murphy et al., 106 Q.J. Economics (cited in note 2).Google Scholar

31 Murphy et al, 106 Q.J. Economics. Google Scholar

32 Magee et al., “Invisible Foot” (cited in note 2).Google Scholar

33 Magee, “Cross-national Estimates” (cited in note 2).Google Scholar

34 Datta & Nugent, 14 World Dev. 1457 (cited in note 2); Magee et al, “Invisible Foot”; Magee, “Cross-national Estimates”; and Cross, 70 Tex. L Rev. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 Chicago: American Bar Foundation, 1963, 1983.Google Scholar

36 Marc Galanter, “The Debased Debate on Civil Justice,” Disputes Processing Research Program, Working Paper DPRP 10-10 (Institute for Legal Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1992) (“Galanter, ‘Debased Debate’“).Google Scholar

37 Robert Brown, “A Lawyer by Any Other Name: Legal Advisors in Japan,” in Legal Aspects of Doing Business in Japan, 1983 (New York: Practising Law Institute, 1983).Google Scholar

38 Magee, et al, “Invisible Foot.”Google Scholar

39 Magee, “Cross-national Estimates.”Google Scholar

40 Pedersen, “Lawyers in Politics” at 29 (cited in note 18).Google Scholar

41 Id at 47–48.Google Scholar

42 Comparisons based on id, tables 2.1 and 2.4.Google Scholar

43 Magee et al., “Invisible Foot”; Datta & Nugent, 14 World Dev.; and Magee, “Cross-national Estimates.”Google Scholar

44 Magee et al., “Invisible Foot.”Google Scholar

45 Cross, 70 Tex. L Rev. at 669, makes a similar point.Google Scholar

46 Magee, “Cross-national Estimates” (cited in note 2).Google Scholar

47 American Bar Foundation, International Directory of Bar Association (1963).Google Scholar

48 Rhyne, Charles S., ed., Law and Judicial Systems of Nations (Washington: World Peace through Law Center, 1978).Google Scholar

49 Id Google Scholar

50 I could find lawyer figures in Id for only 23 countries in my 40-country sample; I have no idea how Magee found complete data for his 54-country sample or whether hesupplemented the 1978 figures with lawyer figures from other sources or other years.Google Scholar

51 Magee, “Cross-national Estimates,” table 1.Google Scholar

52 Id. Google Scholar

53 Id., table 1.Google Scholar

54 Id. at 13.Google Scholar

55 There are two substantial differences between our two figures. In Magee's, Uruguay appears near Chile, with a high lawyer/white-collar ratio and a low economic growth rate; that placement appears to be an error, because the lawyer/white-collar ratio in Uruguay is, in fact, relatively low. Similarly, in Magee's figure, Malaysia is shown as having a relatively low economic growth rate, which is an error.Google Scholar

56 Magee, “Cross-national Estimates.” table l, cols. 6 & 7.Google Scholar

57 Id. Google Scholar

58 Magee et al., “Invisible Foot” (cited in note 2).Google Scholar

59 Cross, 70 Texas L Rev. (cited in note 3); Magee, “Cross-national Estimates.” Cross defines white-collar workers as including all those employed in finance, real estate, and services, while Magee defines the category as including only professional and technical workers.Google Scholar

60 International Labour Organisation, Year Book of Labour Statistics (Geneva, Switzerland: ILO, 1973, 1976).Google Scholar

61 Laband & Sophocleus, 58 Pub. Choice (cited in note 2).Google Scholar

62 Figures calculated from American Bar Association, Annual Report of the AmericanBar Association, 1961, and 1981 (Chicago: ABA), and Curran, Barbara A., The Lawyer Statistical Report: A Statistical Profile of the U.S. Legal Profession in the 1980s (Chicago: American Bar Foundation, 1985).Google Scholar

63 Lawyer data taken from Marc Galanter, “Debased Debate” (cited in note 36). Those data include lawyer population figures for some countries that are the same as those Magee used in his research; but for other countries, the Galanter data correct for flaws inthe Magee data by taking into account differences in the definition of lawyer among countries and correcting other errors.Google Scholar

64 Barro, Robert J. & Xavier Sala-i-Martin, “Convergence,” 100 1. Pol. Econ. 223(1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65 Magee et ul., “Invisible Foot”; my data are derived from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population, detailed reports for 1960, 1970, and 1980 (Washington: Government Printing Office), and id, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1961, 1971. 1981(Washington: Government Printing Office).Google Scholar

66 Magee et al., “Invisible Foot.”Google Scholar

67 Dara derived from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Cem of the Population, detailed reports for 1960, 1970, 1980.Google Scholar

68 Id/Google Scholar

69 White-collar workers are defined here as workers in professional, technical, management, sales, and clerical positions; data derived from U.S. Census Bureau, Census of the Population, detailed reports for 1960, 1970, 1980.Google Scholar

70 Data from Vernon Renshaw, E.A. Trott, Jr., & Friedenberg, Howard L., “Gross State Product by Industry, 1963–1986,” 68 Survey Current Bus. 30 (May 1988).Google Scholar

71 Data for the first three variables from id; data for business services, less legal services, from U.S. Bureau of the Census, County Business Pattons for 1962, 1972, and 1982 (Washington: Government Printing Office).Google Scholar

72 Barro, Robert J., “Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries,” 106 Q. J. Economics 407 (1991).Google Scholar

73 Halliday, 20 Law B Soc'y Reu. (cited in note 13).Google Scholar

74 Id Google Scholar

75 Laband & Sophocleus, 58 Pub. Choice (cited in note 2).Google Scholar

76 In Barrow's analysis (106 Q.J. Economics) the level of education significantly affects rate of economic growth; data for my analysis derived from U.S. Bureau of the CensusCem of the Population, detailed reports for 1960, 1970, 1980.Google Scholar

77 Laband & Sophocleus, 58 Pub. Choice. Google Scholar

78 Barro & Sala-i-Martin, 100 J. Pol. Econ. at 223–24 (cited in note 61).Google Scholar

79 I have removed Alaska and the District of Columbia from the entire analysis, because they are outliers with unusually high lawyer ratios that unjustifiably alter the estimates significantly.Google Scholar

80 Magee, “Cross-national Estimates” (cited in note 2).Google Scholar

81 Id Google Scholar

82 Id, table 6.Google Scholar

83 Data from Beth Bazar, State Legislators' Occupations: A Decade of Change (Denver: National Conference on State Legislatures, 1987).Google Scholar

84 The analysis presented in table 5 excludes New Hampshire because of the unusually low proportion of lawyers in its legislature. If New Hampshire is included in the analysis, the negative association between the lawyer/legislator variable and economic growth approaches statistical significance. To conclude, based only on the case of New Hampshire, that lawyers in legislatures impair economic growth is unjustified.Google Scholar

85 President's Council (cited in note 1).Google Scholar

86 Wolf Heydebrand, “Government Litigation and National Policymaking From Roosevelt to Reagan,” 24 Law & Soc'y Rev. 477 (1990).Google Scholar

87 Data from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Annual Report of the Director, 1961, 1971, 1981 (Washington: Administrative Office of the US. Courts).Google Scholar

88 Henderson, James A., Jr., & Theodore Eisenberg, “The Quiet Revolution in Products Liability: An Empirical Study of Legal Change.” 37 UCLA L Rev. 479, 520–21 (1990).Google Scholar

89 Data from the Court Statistics Project, State Court Caseload Statistics: Annual Report 1990 (Williamsburg. Va.: National Center for State Courts in cooperation with the Conference of State Court Administrators, 1992). In a private communication, Bryan Ostrom of the Court Statistics Project has assured me that the data on tort filings for the 23 states are at least 90% complete for each of the states.Google Scholar

90 Cross, 70 Tex. L Rev. (cited in note 3).Google Scholar

91 Galanter, “Debased Debate” (cited in note 36).Google Scholar

92 Data on per capita GNP growth are derived from constant dollar figures in the World Bank, World Tables (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991).Google Scholar

93 Magee, “Cross-national Estimates” (cited in note 2).Google Scholar

94 Barro, 106 Q.J. Econ. (cited in note 72).Google Scholar

95 Data on education and economic variables from the World Bank, World Development Report (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981, 1982, 1983); data on the number of coups per year from Charles Lewis Taylor & Jodice, David A., World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators (3d ed. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1983).Google Scholar

96 Data on white-collar workers from the International Labour Organisation, Year Book of Labour Statistics (Geneva, Switzerland: ILO, 1983, 1984, 1985). Magee's alternative definition of white-collar workers, limited to professional and technical workers, defines the base so narrowly that it confounds the measure of lawyer populations with the measure of highly developed technical professions. The resulting ratio thus measures a lack of technical workers in some countries rather than measuring the size of the legal profession itself.Google Scholar

97 Data on GNP/Capita from the World Bank, World Tables, 1991; measured as a ratio to GNP, the US. lawyer population is not unusually large: it ranks 14th in my sample of countries.Google Scholar

98 That is the test for curvilinearity employed by Magee, “Cross-national Estimates.”Google Scholar

99 If Pakistan is included in the analysis, the positive association between the lawyer data and the economic growth data becomes statistically significant.Google Scholar

100 Cross, 70 Tex. L Rev. Google Scholar

101 Magee, Letter (cited in note 2).Google Scholar

102 Some changes in our legal system, particularly rising levels of case filing, increasing numbers of lawyers, and increasing levels of policy making by courts, appear to parallel developments in other countries, suggesting that the U.S. legal system is not a complete aberration as it is often portrayed. See Galanter, Marc, “Law Abounding: Legalisation around the North Atlantic,” 55 Rev, Mod L. 1 (1992); Volcansek, Mary L., “Politics, Courts and Judges in Western Europe” (presented at 1992 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago); Mauro Cappelletti, “Repudiating Montesquieu? The Expansion and Legitimacy of ‘Constitutional Justice,’“ 35 Catholic U.L Rev. 1 (1985); Kenneth Holland, ed., Judicial Activism in Comparative Perspective (New York: St. Martin's, 1991). Others disagree, emphasizing the greater legalization of the US. system. See, in particular, Kagan, Robert A., “Adversarial Legalism and American Government,” 10 J. Pol'y Analysis & Mgmt. 369 (1991).Google Scholar

103 Hensler, Deborah R., “Taking Aim at the Legal System: The Council on Competitiveness's Agenda for Legal Reform,” 75 Judicature 244 (1992).Google Scholar

104 Marc Galanter, “Debased Debate” (cited in note 36).Google Scholar

105 Hager, Mark M., “Civil Compensation and Its Discontents: A Response to Huber,” 42 Stan. L Rev. 539 (1990).Google Scholar

106 Kakalik, James S. & Pace, Nicholas M., Costs and Compensation Paid in Tort Litigation (Santa Monica, Cal.: Institute for Civil Justice, RAND, 1986).Google Scholar

107 Marc Galanter & Epp, Charles R., “A Beginner's Guide to the Litigation Maze,”27(4) Bus. Econ. 33 (1992).Google Scholar

108 Galanter, “Debased Debate.”Google Scholar

109 Kritzer, Herbert M., The Justice Broker: Lawyers and Ordinary Litigation 32 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990).Google Scholar

110 Id. at 38.Google Scholar

111 Post, Robert C., “On the Popular Image of the Lawyer: Reflections in a Dark Glass,” 75 Calif L Rev. 379 (1987).Google Scholar

112 Id. at 380.Google Scholar

113 See various chapters in Abel, Richard L. & Philip S. C. Lewis, eds., Lawyers in Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988).Google Scholar

114 Miller & Sarat, 15 Law & Soc'y Rev. (cited in note 21); David Engel, “The Oven Bird's Song: Insiders, Outsiders, and Personal Injuries in an American Community,” 18Law & Soc'y Rev. 551 (1984); Sally Engle Merry, “Going to Court: Strategies of Dispute Management in an American Urban Neighborhood,” 13 Law & Soc'y Rev. 891 (1979).Google Scholar

115 Marc Galanter, “The Legal Malaise: Or, Justice Observed,” 19 Law & Soc'y Rev. 537 (1985).Google Scholar