2003] The Uses of History in Law and Economics 665 concerned. I will elaborate below on the emergence of the positive element of this theory and its effects on the interaction of law and economics with legal history. At this juncture, suffice it to say that refining and defending this general theory of the common law's tendency toward efficiency consumed a great deal of the time and energy of law and economics scholarsand impinged on their interest in positive theories. Instead, they were occupied with proposing and examining theoretical mechanisms that might explain the tendency toward efficiency in the common law. This also limited their study of the past. Even when they moved from theory and speculation to actual historical research, the research was devoted to only a single theory This limited work destroyed the reputation of law and economics historic studies in the eyes of legal historians ite a bad start for a movement toward history in law and economics, specifically, and for any empirical and comparative studies in general. This weak start at positive research further removed law and economics scholars from engaging in the first two research agendas, which seemed important to both Coase and Becker. The interest in these two agendas was developed outside law and economics in fields such as New Institutional Economics. Historical New Institutional Economics and the Wisconsin School of Legal History. Only recently has law and economics expanded its agenda to include these two issues More specifically, Chicago law and economics scholars claimed to be interested not only in legal rules but also in how legal incentives affect individuals' behavior. However, their research did not focus on studying the behavior of individuals. and the behavior of societies and basic social structures and trends was entirely beyond the scope of their research agenda The behavior of individuals was assumed to be affected by legal rules that affected individual incentives. Law and economics aimed at changing behavior but, in fact, studied rules and their change. As its other name, economic analysis of the law, implies, law and economics mainly aspired to normatively evaluate legal rules and prescribe their modification. Only rarely, when legal rules functioned within a market setting, as in the case of anti-trust and securities regulation, did Chicago law and economics scholars inquire into the behavior of individual agents more closely. It was more often the case that the legal rules were analyzed in non-market settings and the behavior of individuals was assumed rather than studied The point made here with respect to the initial limitation of the scope of law and economics is extremely relevant to my general argument, and I will return to it. 11 Nicholas mercuro Steven G. Medema Economics and the law from posner to Post-Modernism 61-67(1997)2003] The Uses of History in Law and Economics 665 concerned. I will elaborate below on the emergence of the positive element of this theory and its effects on the interaction of law and economics with legal history. At this juncture, suffice it to say that refining and defending this general theory of the common law’s tendency toward efficiency consumed a great deal of the time and energy of law and economics scholars11 and impinged on their interest in positive theories. Instead, they were occupied with proposing and examining theoretical mechanisms that might explain the tendency toward efficiency in the common law. This also limited their study of the past. Even when they moved from theory and speculation to actual historical research, the research was devoted to only a single theory. This limited work destroyed the reputation of law and economics historical studies in the eyes of legal historians — quite a bad start for a movement toward history in law and economics, specifically, and for any empirical and comparative studies in general. This weak start at positive research further removed law and economics scholars from engaging in the first two research agendas, which seemed important to both Coase and Becker. The interest in these two agendas was developed outside law and economics in fields such as New Institutional Economics, Historical New Institutional Economics, and the Wisconsin School of Legal History. Only recently has law and economics expanded its agenda to include these two issues. More specifically, Chicago law and economics scholars claimed to be interested not only in legal rules but also in how legal incentives affect individuals’ behavior. However, their research did not focus on studying the behavior of individuals, and the behavior of societies and basic social structures and trends was entirely beyond the scope of their research agenda. The behavior of individuals was assumed to be affected by changes in legal rules that affected individual incentives. Law and economics aimed at changing behavior but, in fact, studied rules and their change. As its other name, economic analysis of the law, implies, law and economics mainly aspired to normatively evaluate legal rules and prescribe their modification. Only rarely, when legal rules functioned within a market setting, as in the case of anti-trust and securities regulation, did Chicago law and economics scholars inquire into the behavior of individual agents more closely. It was more often the case that the legal rules were analyzed in non-market settings and the behavior of individuals was assumed rather than studied. The point made here with respect to the initial limitation of the scope of law and economics is extremely relevant to my general argument, and I will return to it. 11 Nicholas Mercuro & Steven G. Medema, Economics and the Law from Posner to Post-Modernism 61-67 (1997)