2003] The Uses of History in Law and Economics relative prices; and adoption of Kaldor-Hicks efficiency ("potential Pareto efficiency, in more obscure terms)in the sense of wealth maximization as a standard of evaluation The a-historical neoclassical characteristics of law and economics dominated the field. Well into the 1980s and beyond, law and economics was still engaged in adapting price theory to non-market legal behavior as part of a wider project of the expansion of economics. It focused on the application price theory specific contours aw an legislation; property, contracts, and torts; liability rules; and remedies. Law and economics scholars were engaged in intense normative and policy debates with critics from rival jurisprudential and doctrinal schools. These debates revolved around the imperialistic tendencies of economics, its unrealistic assumptions(e.g, of rationality ), and its ideological bias in favor of efficiency considerations at the expense of distributive considerations. As long as the debates at the normative and policy level were intense, law and economics scholars were not likely to find much time or motivation to turn to the study of history D. The lack of Interaction between Economic History and legal histor The 1960s. which witnessed the birth of modern law and economics also saw the formation of two adjacent interdisciplinary fields. The one field, new economic history(also called cliometrics), was created on the borderline between economics and history. It employs economic theory and econometric and statistical tools to study the history of the economy. The other field the wisconsin School of legal History, formed by willard Hurst, is located on the borderline between law and history. It opened up legal history to external -that is, non-legal- historical perspectives, as well as, to a certain degree, social science methodology A triangular structure can be formed from the three interdisciplinary fields This structure provides a comparative perspective when law and economics is placed beside the two other contemporary meetings"of fields: law and history and economics and history. This facilitates addressing law and economics within its disciplinary dimensions. The encounter of the legal discipline with the economic discipline in law and economics can be examined both in its legal context (in its interaction with legal history)and its economic context(in its interaction with economic history). In fact, there are two triangles, on two levels: one created by the three interdisciplinary fields and the other created by the three original disciplines. This broad perspective is best demonstrated by the interplay within and between the two triangles2003] The Uses of History in Law and Economics 667 relative prices; and adoption of Kaldor-Hicks efficiency ("potential Pareto efficiency," in more obscure terms) in the sense of wealth maximization as a standard of evaluation. The a-historical neoclassical characteristics of law and economics dominated the field. Well into the 1980s and beyond, law and economics was still engaged in adapting price theory to non-market legal behavior as part of a wider project of the expansion of economics. It focused on the application of price theory to the specific contours of the law: judge-made law and legislation; property, contracts, and torts; liability rules; and remedies. Law and economics scholars were engaged in intense normative and policy debates with critics from rival jurisprudential and doctrinal schools. These debates revolved around the imperialistic tendencies of economics, its unrealistic assumptions (e.g., of rationality), and its ideological bias in favor of efficiency considerations at the expense of distributive considerations. As long as the debates at the normative and policy level were intense, law and economics scholars were not likely to find much time or motivation to turn to the study of history. D. The Lack of Interaction between Economic History and Legal History The 1960s, which witnessed the birth of modern law and economics, also saw the formation of two adjacent interdisciplinary fields. The one field, new economic history (also called cliometrics), was created on the borderline between economics and history. It employs economic theory and econometric and statistical tools to study the history of the economy. The other field, the Wisconsin School of Legal History, formed by Willard Hurst, is located on the borderline between law and history. It opened up legal history to external — that is, non-legal — historical perspectives, as well as, to a certain degree, social science methodology. A triangular structure can be formed from the three interdisciplinary fields. This structure provides a comparative perspective when law and economics is placed beside the two other contemporary "meetings" of fields: law and history and economics and history. This facilitates addressing law and economics within its disciplinary dimensions. The encounter of the legal discipline with the economic discipline in law and economics can be examined both in its legal context (in its interaction with legal history) and its economic context (in its interaction with economic history). In fact, there are two triangles, on two levels: one created by the three interdisciplinary fields and the other created by the three original disciplines. This broad perspective is best demonstrated by the interplay within and between the two triangles: