VSTE
Littera Scripta

ISSN (online): 1805-9112

Open access

Efficiency versus inequality: a computational and bibliometric analysis of law and political economy scholarship

Marek VOCHOZKA1*iD, J Meena MAHESWARI2iD

  1. Pan-European University, Faculty of Law, Tomášikova 20, 821 02 Bratislava, Slovak Republic
  2. PSGR Krishnammal College for Women, Department of Management, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.

* Corresponding author.

Abstract

This study provides a large-scale empirical comparison between Law & Economics (LE) and Law & Political Economy (LPE) scholarship using computational text analysis techniques. Drawing on 405 publications indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection between 2010 and 2025, the study investigates whether LE and LPE represent conceptually distinct intellectual traditions characterized by different discourse orientations and thematic structures. The research integrates bibliometric analysis, Natural Language Processing (NLP), TF-IDF analysis, topic modeling, econometric modeling, and machine learning classification techniques to evaluate the divergence between the two scholarly frameworks. The findings reveal that LE scholarship remains strongly associated with efficiency-oriented discourse emphasizing markets, incentives, liability systems, and institutional optimization, whereas LPE scholarship demonstrates significantly stronger politically oriented discourse centered on governance, institutional power, social structures, and distributive concerns. Topic modeling results further confirm substantial thematic divergence between the two traditions. The econometric analysis demonstrates that LPE scholarship is significantly associated with higher politically oriented discourse and lower efficiency-oriented discourse. Robustness tests and logistic classification models additionally confirm the stability and computational distinguishability of the two intellectual traditions. Overall, the study contributes new empirical evidence to ongoing debates concerning the evolving relationship between law, economics, governance, and political power within contemporary legal scholarship.

Keywords:Law and EconomicsLaw and Political EconomyComputational Legal AnalysisNatural Language ProcessingLegal Discourse Analysis.
JEL:K00C55D72

References

  1. Alemparte, B. (2025). Privatizing Social Rights: The Law and Political Economy of Chile’s Pension Transformation. German Law Journal, 26(8), 1468–1496. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2026.10178 DOI: 10.1017/glj.2026.10178
  2. Bix, B. H. (2019). The Future of Law and Economics. European Journal of Law and Economics, 48(1), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-018-9592-9 DOI: 10.1007/s10657-018-9592-9
  3. Castro Linares, D. (2019). Penal Law and Economics: A Recurring Concept. Revista General De Derecho Penal, (32).
  4. Chen, C. C. (2025). Current Status and Development of Economic Analysis in Corporate Law and Securities Regulations in Taiwan. Asian Journal of Law and Economics, 16(1), 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1515/ajle-2024-2005 DOI: 10.1515/ajle-2024-2005
  5. Chilton, A., Macey, J. C., & Versteeg, M. (2026). Contemporary Law and Economics. University of Chicago Law Review, 93(2), 301–326. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.6294698
  6. Cruz Cunha Peixoto, G. C. (2013). Economic Analysis of Environmental Law: Pigou’s Theory and Coase’s Theorem. Revista Direito E Liberdade, 15(3), 31–48.
  7. Depoorter, B., & Demot, J. (2011). The Cross-Atlantic Law and Economics Divide: A Dissent. University of Illinois Law Review, (5), 1593–1606.
  8. Gregorut, A. S. (2025). The role of the neoliberal state in the de-universalization of social rights. Direito E Praxis, 16(2), e88982. https://doi.org/10.1590/2179-8966/2024/88982 DOI: 10.1590/2179-8966/2024/88982
  9. Hylton, K. N. (2019). Law and economics versus economic analysis of law. European Journal of Law and Economics, 48(1), 77–88. Conference on the Calabresi’s on Future of Law and Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-018-9580-0 DOI: 10.1007/s10657-018-9580-0
  10. Immermann, E. A. I. (2026). Remaking Law & Economics: What is new about the Law and Political Economy Movement? Onati Socio-Legal Series, 16(1), 10–34. https://doi.org/10.35295/OSLS.IISL.2295 DOI: 10.35295/osls.iisl.2295
  11. Kaufman, B. E. (2012). Some Coasian Problems with Posnerian Law and Economics. Journal of Economic Issues, 46(3), 745–764. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEI0021-3624460308 DOI: 10.2753/JEI0021-3624460308
  12. Kim, H., Tobia, K., & Underhill, K. (2026). Some Things Are Actually Nails: The Value of Randomized Experiments Across Legal Theories. University of Chicago Law Review, 93(2), 469–497. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5522158
  13. Klick, J. (2026). The Law and Political Economy Movement’s Crime Agenda Hurts Black People. University of Chicago Law Review, 93(2), 499–515.
  14. Leeson, P. (2012). An Austrian approach to law and economics, with special reference to superstition. Review of Austrian Economics, 25(3), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-012-0179-3 DOI: 10.1007/s11138-012-0179-3
  15. Leon Quiroga, L. F. (2021). Legal and Economic Institutional Analysis. Novum Jus, 15(1), 223–250. https://doi.org/10.14718/NovumJus.2021.15.1.10 DOI: 10.14718/NovumJus.2021.15.1.10
  16. Lucherini, F. (2026). Sustainable Development in Comparative Constitutional Design. American Journal of Comparative Law. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avag001 DOI: 10.1093/ajcl/avag001
  17. Marciano, A. (2012). Guido Calabresi’s economic analysis of law, Coase and the Coase theorem. International Review of Law and Economics, The Economics of Efficiency and the Judicial System, 32(1), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2011.09.001 DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2011.09.001
  18. Marciano, A., & Ramello, G. B. (2019). Law, economics and Calabresi on the future of law and economics. European Journal of Law and Economics, 48(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-019-09619-4 DOI: 10.1007/s10657-019-09619-4
  19. Newman, J. M. (2026). Attention Capitalism: The Law and Political Economy of Attention Markets. Stanford Law Review, 78(2), 415–476.
  20. Valenzuela, R., & Guiloff, M. (2026). Introduction. Law and political economy in Latin America: Problems and perspectives for a transnational agenda. Onati Socio-Legal Series, 16(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.35295/OSLS.IISL.2591 DOI: 10.35295/osls.iisl.2591
  21. Velazquez, A. (2026). Bankrupting Labor Power. Stanford Law Review, 78(5), 1023–1077.
  22. Yamin, A. E. (2026). The Paradox of Global Health Law: A Law and Political Economy Perspective. Ajil Unbound, 120, 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2026.10063 DOI: 10.1017/aju.2026.10063
  23. Zwolinski, M. (2026). Are markets coercive? Politics Philosophy & Economics. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X261450600 DOI: 10.1177/1470594X261450600