Fred Carstensen wrote: > The genius of the Common Law (as opposed to Civil Law) is its > flexibility and dynamism, its capacity to respond to the demands and > needs of evolving markets and technological evolution. A critical > advantage in the Anglo-American experience was having, uniquely, the > Common law framework. > Maybe as an aside of this discussion on spontaneous order (in fact, nor really!) but I would like to add something on the opposition between the virtuous common law and civil law. I think not only that it is misleading to attribute every virtue to the Common Law: flexibility, dynamism, the capacity ... Path-dependency (because of the precedent), lock-in effects and inertia also characterize common law systems. And also, to oppose once again common to civil law is misleading. It implies that all the advantages are on one side and the problems and limits on the other side. It may be true that "a critical advantage in the Anglo-American experience was having, uniquely, the Common law framework". It is certainly not true to imply that civil law countries lack of of flexibility and dynamism and of any capacity to respond to the demand and needs of evolving markets and technological evolution. It seems to me that the level of economic and cultural development in certain countries (France and Germany for instance) indeed developed in a civil law framework. One reason is that legal codes in civil law countries (The Code Napoleon, for instance) cannot be considered as the product of totally constructivist approaches. The jurists who "designed" the Civil Code made a large use of customs. Another reason is that judges indeed play a very important role in civil law countries. The legal system does not function as top-down, centralized process. This suggests that the genuine distinction is not between common law and civil law but between customary law and common/civil law. Bruce Benson has written many illuminating papers on this issue. Alain Marciano