In the third sequence of our Comparative Methodology 101 series, it is getting even more numerical! After discussing the (still) prevalent functional method that is now challenged, inter alia, by the comparative law and economics movement, let’s look at quantitative comparative law.
The Basis of Quantitative Comparative Law
Quantitative comparative law (as the name suggests) quantifies legal provisions in order to examine either the quality of laws or the divergence/convergence of laws.
The Premise of Quantitative Comparative Law
Quantitative comparative law rests on the following two premises:
- laws in different countries are founded on a few families and traditions; and
- legal provisions can be quantified.
The Method of Quantitative Comparative Law
While there is no strict methodology, a quantitative analysis of the quality of laws could consist of the following six steps (extrapolated from La Porta 1998, see footnotes):
- Compilation of a data set that is large enough to allow for a statistical analysis;
- Determination of a classification method that allows for grouping of the collected data;
- Specification of the legal rules that will be examined;
- Further division of the legal rules into groups/sub-groups;
- Country by country quantification of legal provisions;
- Evaluation of gathered data.
Conclusion
Quantitative comparative law specifically caters to the number freaks among us. In particular, the quantification of the comparative analysis warrants for more straightforward, relatively objective results. Also, quantitative comparative law allows for large-scale comparisons that would otherwise easily go beyond the scope of a regular paper. Yet, the latter point can also be a downside as comprehensive data sampling represents a tedious task. As a result, quantitative comparative law papers are usually written by groups of authors. Overall, quantitative comparative law provides another fascinating new methodology and it remains to be seen whether it will take root among comparative law scholars.
Interested in more? Feel free to browse the archive or click here and here to read the previous two posts in this series. And don’t forget to subscribe to CompareLex!
—————
Footnotes
- Mathias M. Siems, Numerical Comparative Law: Do We Need Statistical Evidence in Law in order to Reduce Complexity?, 13 CARDOZO J. INT’L & COMP. L. 521 (2005).
- Rafael La Porta et al., Law and Finance, 106 J. POL. ECON. 1113 (1998).
