Theoretical Inquiries in Lan Vol.4659 the"first great law economics movement. "3 Insiders disdainfully repudiate such intellectual origins. They point to Chicago(not Yale, Columbia, Wisconsin), to economics(not law), and to the neo-classical (not institutional or historical) school ofeconomics as the bedrock of the field. Thus, the official internal history of the field begins in Chicago. The questions that then arise are, When and who? Some trace the origins back in time (or deeper int economics)to Stigler and Friedman or even as far back as Knight and Hayek Some stress the more lawyerly group organized under the guidance of Aaron Director and Edward Levy, which developed an anti-trust -or rather anti- anti-trust-theory influenced by economic price theory. But most stress as the immediate origins both in terms of time and substance the contributions of two economists: Ronald Coase and Gary Becker, circa 1960.Coase,in his seminal 1960 article, reintroduced transaction costs (after doing so for the 3 Peculiar in the sense that they shared the same subjects of research but not me Movement, 42 Stan. L Rev. 993(1990); Morton Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law1870-1960,at247-68(1992) 4 See Edmund w Kitch, The Fire of Truth: A Remembrance of Law and Economics at Chicago, 26 J. L. Econ. 163(1983), for the assessment of some of the participants As for the influence of institutional economics on law and economics, george Stigler has said, "[T]he school died as completely as any school can die in the sense that it has no viable influence. ld. at 170. Henry Manne referred as follows to the impact of the interaction between institutionalist Walton Hamilton and legal realism at Yale: "[Bly the time I was graduate student at Yale in fifty-three no one seemed to remember the episode "ld. at 173. Finally, Milton Friedman has said of the first tenured economist at the Chicago Law School, Henry Simons, that"he was opposed to almost everything that the institutionalists and legal realists stood for " ld at 176 5 See James R Hackney, Law and Neoclassical Economics: Science, Politics, and the Reconfiguration of American Tort Law Theory, 15 Law Hist Rev. 275(1997),for an interesting discussion of the origins of law and economics in terms of analytic scientific turn and antistatist political position, with particular focus on Hayek and Knight. For a discussion emphasizing the role of post World War ll Chicago economists, particularly Friedman and Stigler, and the difference between their approach and that of their teacher, Knight, see Duxbury, supra note 2, at 330-48 For a similar view, see Nicolas Mercuro Steven Medema, Economics and the Law, From Posner to Post Modernism 54-56(1997) 6 Some refer to Guido Calabresis 1961 Some Thoughts on Risk Distribution and the Law of Torts as equivalent to Coase's contribution to the foundation of law and economics. Others view Calabresi as the founder of the New haven school of Law and Economics, as distinct from the Chicago School of Law and Economics See Guido Calabresi, The Cost of Accidents: A Legal Economic Analysis 205-25 (1970); Guido Calabresi A. Douglas Melamed, Property Rules, Liability rules and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral, 85 Harv. L. Rev. 1089(1972662 Theoretical Inquiries in Law [Vol. 4:659 the "first great law & economics movement."3 Insiders disdainfully repudiate such intellectual origins.4 They point to Chicago (not Yale, Columbia, or Wisconsin), to economics (not law), and to the neo-classical (not institutional or historical) school of economics as the bedrock of the field. Thus, the official, internal history of the field begins in Chicago. The questions that then arise are, When and who? Some trace the origins back in time (or deeper into economics) to Stigler and Friedman or even as far back as Knight and Hayek. Some stress the more lawyerly group organized under the guidance of Aaron Director and Edward Levy, which developed an anti-trust — or rather anti￾anti-trust — theory influenced by economic price theory.5 But most stress as the immediate origins, both in terms of time and substance, the contributions of two economists: Ronald Coase and Gary Becker, circa 1960.6 Coase, in his seminal 1960 article, reintroduced transaction costs (after doing so for the 3 Peculiar in the sense that they shared the same subjects of research but not method or political positions. See Herbert Hovenkamp, The First Great Law & Economics Movement, 42 Stan. L. Rev. 993 (1990); Morton Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law 1870-1960, at 247-68 (1992). 4 See Edmund W. Kitch, The Fire of Truth: A Remembrance of Law and Economics at Chicago, 26 J.L. & Econ. 163 (1983), for the assessment of some of the participants. As for the influence of institutional economics on law and economics, George Stigler has said, "[T]he school died as completely as any school can die in the sense that it has no viable influence." Id. at 170. Henry Manne referred as follows to the impact of the interaction between institutionalist Walton Hamilton and legal realism at Yale: "[B]y the time I was graduate student at Yale in fifty-three no one seemed to remember the episode." Id. at 173. Finally, Milton Friedman has said of the first tenured economist at the Chicago Law School, Henry Simons, that "he was opposed to almost everything that the institutionalists and legal realists stood for." Id. at 176. 5 See James R. Hackney, Law and Neoclassical Economics: Science, Politics, and the Reconfiguration of American Tort Law Theory, 15 Law & Hist. Rev. 275 (1997), for an interesting discussion of the origins of law and economics in terms of analytic scientific turn and antistatist political position, with particular focus on Hayek and Knight. For a discussion emphasizing the role of post World War II Chicago economists, particularly Friedman and Stigler, and the difference between their approach and that of their teacher, Knight, see Duxbury, supra note 2, at 330-48. For a similar view, see Nicolas Mercuro & Steven Medema, Economics and the Law, From Posner to Post Modernism 54-56 (1997). 6 Some refer to Guido Calabresi’s 1961 Some Thoughts on Risk Distribution and the Law of Torts as equivalent to Coase’s contribution to the foundation of law and economics. Others view Calabresi as the founder of the New Haven School of Law and Economics, as distinct from the Chicago School of Law and Economics. See Guido Calabresi, The Cost of Accidents: A Legal Economic Analysis 205-25 (1970); Guido Calabresi & A. Douglas Melamed, Property Rules, Liability Rules and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral, 85 Harv. L. Rev. 1089 (1972)