On Rawlsian Contractualism and the Private Law

*David Blankfein-Tabachnick is an Associate Professor of Law at the Michigan State University College of Law, a Visiting Professor of Law at the University of Michigan School of Law, and an Affiliated Transnational Professor at the Peking University School of Transnational Law. Kevin A. Kordana is a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law.Show More

Introduction: Paradigm Shift and the Rejection of the Conventional View

Shifts in academic paradigms are rare. Still, it was not long ago that the values taken to govern the private law were thought to be distinct from the values governing taxation and transfer. This was thought to be true, although for different reasons, in both philosophical and economic accounts of private law. The question was, for example, whether the law of contract and tort is properly governed by the values of autonomy and corrective justice or by distributive concerns instead. The conventional, indeed, the nearly universal view of Rawlsianism—the overwhelmingly dominant theory of liberalism and distributive justice—was that the private law lies beyond the scope of Rawls’s two principles of justice.¹ 1.See, e.g., Bruce A. Ackerman, Social Justice in the Liberal State 195 (1980); David Lyons, Ethics and the Rule of Law 131–32 (1984) (asserting “the principles of justice” “do not apply to private arrangements and transactions”); Anthony T. Kronman, Contract Law and Distributive Justice, 89 Yale L.J. 472, 474, 477 (1980) (noting the “unconcern with the distributive consequences of . . . private arrangements”).Show More

Simply put, for Rawlsianism, the private law was not thought to be the province of distributive concerns. In more academic terms, the private law is not properly understood to be subject to Rawls’s range-limited principles of justice. In this conventional view, the private law is not part of what Rawls describes as “the basic structure of society,” which is roughly limited to basic constitutional liberties and taxation and transfer. This view invites the conclusion that Rawlsian political philosophy—despite its lexically ordered, distributive demand that economic institutions are to be arranged to the maximal benefit of the least well-off—is stunningly neutral with respect to the economic arrangements and ordering of the private law. This thinking led to the conclusion that the private law, if it is to exist, may be justified by values or principles other than Rawls’s lexically ordered principles of justice, whether wealth-maximization, autonomy, or pre-conceived or even pre-political notions of property entitlement.² 2.Kevin A. Kordana & David H. Tabachnick, Rawls and Contract Law, 73 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 598, 599–600 (2005) [hereinafter Kordana & Tabachnick, Rawls & Contract].Show More

At the same time, the dominant view in law and economics has been that the private law should be sanitized of egalitarian or equity-oriented values.³ 3.Louis Kaplow & Steven Shavell, Why the Legal System Is Less Efficient than the Income Tax in Redistributing Income, 23 J. Legal Stud. 667, 667–69 (1994).Show More The seductive idea was that any desired egalitarian moves could be achieved more efficiently through systems of income taxation and transfer than through any egalitarian alterations in private law rules. The conclusion was that the private law should be constructed to maximize wealth (e.g., optimal deterrence in tort), leaving equity-oriented demands for the system of income taxation and transfer.⁴ 4.Id.Show More The argument’s invited conclusion was that any egalitarian (i.e., non-wealth-maximizing) adjustments to private law rules are inefficient, even if well-intentioned, private law constructions. If one conjoins the conclusions of both arguments, even a Rawlsian arguably ought to adopt the wealth maximizing conception of the private law.

Our early work, arguing against the conventional view, lead to a sustained analysis of this law and economics argument as well.⁵ 5.David Blankfein-Tabachnick & Kevin A. Kordana, Kaplow and Shavell and the Priority of Income Taxation and Transfer, 69 Hastings L.J. 1 (2017). In outlining what he terms the three most crucial scholarly “caveats” to Kaplow and Shavell’s argument, Guttentag writes,A second caveat to the double-distortion presumption has to do with property rights. . . . Blankfein-Tabachnick and Kordana argue that taking property rights as a given is deeply problematic for the double-distortion presumption because property rights themselves are a creation of the legal system. Moreover, property rights have significant effects on the distribution of income and wealth.Michael D. Guttentag, Law, Taxes, Inequality, and Surplus, 102 B.U. L. Rev. 1329, 1336–37 (2022).Show More We have argued that there is an “entitlement” flaw in both conventional approaches.⁶ 6.Blankfein-Tabachnick & Kordana, supra note 5, at 8; Kevin A. Kordana & David H. Tabachnick, Taxation, the Private Law, and Distributive Justice, 23 Soc. Phil. & Pol’y 142, 163 (2006) (“Kaplow and Shavell appear to assume the existence of an underlying system of propertyownership and free markets. [The] issue, however, is the very question of the form that property rules should take; that is, we are interested in the question of whether the equity-oriented values that differing theorists hold are best met through tax and transfer, or through (in part) the rules of property law. Thus, it is not clear that Kaplow and Shavell’s discussion, which compares tax and transfer to a tort rule (in isolation) and concludes that tax and transfer is superior in terms of economic efficiency, would (also) apply to the question of the underlying set of property rules.”).Show More Despite well-entrenched views on both sides, our objection has been well-received,⁷ 7.Kordana & Tabachnick, Rawls & Contract, supra note 2, at 632 (“Our conclusions are bold. . . . [C]ontrary to the conventionally held narrow conception, contract law is within the basic structure . . . [and] the door is open for a deeper understanding of the role that private law plays in Rawlsian political philosophy—it is no longer accurate to believe that Rawlsianism is silent on matters of contract and private ordering . . . .”). Shapiro, for example, notes the similarity between our position in Kordana & Tabachnick, Rawls & Contract, supra note 2, and the recent scholarship, aptly drawing conclusions from the perspective of the new paradigm, taking its baseline as given. Matthew A. Shapiro, Distributing Civil Justice, 109 Geo. L.J. 1473, 1531 (2021). “Rawls’s theory thus does not defuse the conflicts between distributive justice and the liberal state’s other roles so much as deny them, by assigning distributive justice effective, if not formal, priority over other imperatives.” Id. at 1532. He then contrasts the new baseline with that of the former “conventional” view, ably recognizing the conflict within that view, and holding that it is “[o]nly by diluting the requirements of distributive justice” that one might “manage to harmonize them with [backward-looking or deontic] dispute resolution and rights enforcement.” Id. at 1533.Show More and change is upon the legal academy. A wide range of scholars have begun to reject these two conventional views.⁸ 8.See, e.g., Samuel Scheffler, Distributive Justice, the Basic Structure and the Place of Private Law, H.L.A. Hart Memorial Lecture (May 2014), in 35 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 213, 233 (2015); Samuel Freeman, Liberalism and Distributive Justice 168, 192–93 (2018) (arguing Rawls’s principles apply to the private law); Richard L. Revesz, Regulation and Distribution, 93 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1489, 1518 (2018) (asserting distributional concerns, not just wealth maximization, should play a broader role in regulation).Show More But in our view, scholars have not always fully recognized what we take to be the full ramifications of the private law being constructed by distributive principles.⁹ 9.E.g., Arthur Ripstein, Private Wrongs 291 (2016); Freeman, supra note 8, at 185; Zachary Liscow, Note, Reducing Inequality on the Cheap: When Legal Rule Design Should Incorporate Equity as Well as Efficiency, 123 Yale L.J. 2478, 2486–87 (2014).Show More

As we say, academic paradigm shifts are rare; being at the center of one is rarer still. We are honored that the Virginia Law Review has provided us an opportunity to continue the dialogue that proceeds at the heights of the legal academy. In what follows, we aim to discuss our position regarding Rawlsian private law while engaging with scholars who have further developed this complex debate. Ultimately, we hold that, despite the purported complications, there is, as we path-breakingly argue, a Rawlsian account of the private law.

For Rawls, the “basic structure” of society is understood to embody political and legal institutions that materially affect citizens’ life prospects, such as basic constitutional liberties, security of the person, the system of taxation and transfer, schooling, and fiscal policy. These institutions are taken to be subject to and governed by what Rawls famously calls “the two principles of justice.”¹⁰ 10.John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement 42–43 (2001) [hereinafter Rawls, JaF] (“The two principles of justice [state] (a) Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties . . . and (b) Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle).”).Show More However, significant scholarly controversy has arisen over the question of whether the private law (e.g., contract, tort, property, etc.) is properly understood to be within the basic structure of society.¹¹ 11.As we noted supra note 1, Bruce Ackerman, David Lyons, and Anthony Kronman held the conventional or narrow view that private law lies outside the basic structure. But cf. Kronman, supra note 1, at 475 (suggesting that Rawls should not have narrowed). Scheffler posits that Ripstein views private law as lying within the basic structure, Scheffler, supra note 8, at 232 (“Suppose we accept that, although private law is part of the basic structure, there is nevertheless room for it to enjoy the limited independence from distributive principles that Ripstein envisions.”), but this view is contested. See Kevin A. Kordana & David H. Tabachnick, On Belling the Cat: Rawls and Tort as Corrective Justice, 92 Va. L. Rev. 1279, 1291–92 (2006) [hereinafter Kordana & Tabachnick, Belling the Cat] (interpreting Ripstein as holding the narrow view); Freeman, supra note 8, at 168 (“[For] Ripstein . . . private law ‘has a certain kind of independence’ and should lie outside the basic structure . . . ”). In his newer work, Ripstein side-steps the question. Ripstein, supra note 9, at 291 (“The specifics of Rawls’s formulation need not concern us . . . .”). Murphy holds that the private law is inside the basic structure and that any attempt at narrowing in Rawls’s The Basic Structure as Subject is predicated on a textual mistake. Liam Murphy, Institutions and the Demands of Justice, 27 Phil. & Pub. Affs. 251, 261 & n.30 (1999); Liam Murphy, The Artificial Morality of Private Law: The Persistence of An Illusion, 70 U. Toronto L.J. 453, 457 n.11 (2020) [hereinafter Murphy, Artificial Morality] (“Rawls himself proposed evaluating institutions such as property and contract solely on the basis of social justice as identified by his two principles, which do not obviously have room for values distinctively associated with private ordering.”). Freeman and Scheffler agree that the private law is part of the basic structure. See Scheffler, supra note 8; Freeman, supra note 8; see also Aditi Bagchi, Distributive Injustice and Private Law, 60 Hastings L.J. 105, 109–11 (2008) (discussing the role of distributive justice in contract law).Show More

The controversy over the question of the breadth of the basic structure is understandable: Rawls is believed to have been less than perfectly consistent. But, with regard to the specific relationship between the private law and the basic structure, we have argued that the historically conventional view—that private law is beyond the reach of the two principles of justice—must be mistaken.

It is important to understand what is at issue in this debate. It is neither a mere scholastic exercise, nor a simple game of words; significant matters of social and economic justice are at stake. Consider, for example, the so-called “causal” requirement in tort law—typically associated with the corrective justice conception. The idea here is that, from the perspective of a consequentialist approach, tort liability ought to be constrained: tort defendants are taken to be liable only for harm they have “caused” plaintiffs and they owe a duty of repair only to such plaintiffs. This “bilateral” or interpersonal relationship, although stated several ways, is central, for example, to backward-looking approaches to tort, even despite the contested status of the concept of causation.¹² 12.H.L.A. Hart & A.M. Honoré, Causation in the Law 58 (1959).Show More

While the causal requirement may be a necessary condition to a number of conceptions of justice, it can also serve as a significant impediment to otherwise seemingly just “systems” or distributive approaches to accident management.¹³ 13.Guido Calabresi, Toward A Unified Theory of Torts, 1 J. Tort L. 1, 1 (2007) (“Yes, all that can go out of torts . . .”—referring to causation and the other “hornbook [elements] of liability”—“but tort law won’t cease being.”).Show More Consider for example, unjustified risk-taking,¹⁴ 14.George P. Fletcher, Fairness and Utility in Tort Theory, 85 Harv. L. Rev. 537, 540–43 (1972).Show More whether reckless or negligent. Such activity, absent an actualized harm, is insufficient to incurring tortious liability. So, ex ante accident management systems that focus on liability for unjustified risk imposition are objectionable for failing to satisfy the causal requirement. Still, ex ante liability, properly and narrowly assigned, is an important tool in the social planning and institutional design of accident management. It is useful, for example, in cost spreading and deterrence,¹⁵ 15.Guido Calabresi, The Costs of Accidents: A Legal and Economic Analysis 70 (1970).Show More both of which can be instrumental to achieving certain accounts of social justice.¹⁶ 16.John Rawls, A Theory of Justice 212–13 (2d ed. 1999) [hereinafter Rawls, TJ] (considering the possibility of strict liability).Show More

Indeed, our own legal system regulates driving a motor vehicle not only with tort, but also with criminal law. The latter imposes liability for what might be termed risk imposition even in the absence of harm caused—for example, penalties for speeding, driving under the influence, and violating various other traffic laws. If tort law were to be subject to the goals of social planning and distributive justice, say, a special concern for the least well-off or people most likely to bear the cost of accidents, swaths of the causal requirement may need to be jettisoned. In addition to the traffic example, market share liability, where liability is predicated upon plaintiffs’ share of a market in faulty products, as opposed to causation, also might be a common approach to tort liability and accident management. While the imposition of liability in these instances fails to comport with the traditionalist causal requirement, it may be crucial to certain forms of accident management, whether conducive to advancing the position of the poor or creating optimal deterrence with the aim of wealth creation.¹⁷ 17.See, e.g., Richard A. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law 241–45 (9th ed. 2014); A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell, Punitive Damages: An Economic Analysis, 111 Harv. L. Rev. 869, 918–20 (1999) (noting defendants should face liability above the harm caused when their gain is socially illicit).Show More

1. See, e.g., Bruce A. Ackerman, Social Justice in the Liberal State 195 (1980); David Lyons, Ethics and the Rule of Law 131–32 (1984) (asserting “the principles of justice” “do not apply to private arrangements and transactions”); Anthony T. Kronman, Contract Law and Distributive Justice, 89 Yale L.J. 472, 474, 477 (1980) (noting the “unconcern with the distributive consequences of . . . private arrangements”). ↑
2. Kevin A. Kordana & David H. Tabachnick, Rawls and Contract Law, 73 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 598, 599–600 (2005) [hereinafter Kordana & Tabachnick, Rawls & Contract]. ↑
3. Louis Kaplow & Steven Shavell, Why the Legal System Is Less Efficient than the Income Tax in Redistributing Income, 23 J. Legal Stud. 667, 667–69 (1994). ↑
4. Id. ↑
5. David Blankfein-Tabachnick & Kevin A. Kordana, Kaplow and Shavell and the Priority of Income Taxation and Transfer, 69 Hastings L.J. 1 (2017). In outlining what he terms the three most crucial scholarly “caveats” to Kaplow and Shavell’s argument, Guttentag writes,A second caveat to the double-distortion presumption has to do with property rights. . . . Blankfein-Tabachnick and Kordana argue that taking property rights as a given is deeply problematic for the double-distortion presumption because property rights themselves are a creation of the legal system. Moreover, property rights have significant effects on the distribution of income and wealth.Michael D. Guttentag, Law, Taxes, Inequality, and Surplus, 102 B.U. L. Rev. 1329, 1336–37 (2022). ↑
6. Blankfein-Tabachnick & Kordana, supra note 5, at 8; Kevin A. Kordana & David H. Tabachnick, Taxation, the Private Law, and Distributive Justice, 23 Soc. Phil. & Pol’y 142, 163 (2006) (“Kaplow and Shavell appear to assume the existence of an underlying system of property ownership and free markets. [The] issue, however, is the very question of the form that property rules should take; that is, we are interested in the question of whether the equity-oriented values that differing theorists hold are best met through tax and transfer, or through (in part) the rules of property law. Thus, it is not clear that Kaplow and Shavell’s discussion, which compares tax and transfer to a tort rule (in isolation) and concludes that tax and transfer is superior in terms of economic efficiency, would (also) apply to the question of the underlying set of property rules.”). ↑
7. Kordana & Tabachnick, Rawls & Contract, supra note 2, at 632 (“Our conclusions are bold. . . . [C]ontrary to the conventionally held narrow conception, contract law is within the basic structure . . . [and] the door is open for a deeper understanding of the role that private law plays in Rawlsian political philosophy—it is no longer accurate to believe that Rawlsianism is silent on matters of contract and private ordering . . . .”). Shapiro, for example, notes the similarity between our position in Kordana & Tabachnick, Rawls & Contract, supra note 2, and the recent scholarship, aptly drawing conclusions from the perspective of the new paradigm, taking its baseline as given. Matthew A. Shapiro, Distributing Civil Justice, 109 Geo. L.J. 1473, 1531 (2021). “Rawls’s theory thus does not defuse the conflicts between distributive justice and the liberal state’s other roles so much as deny them, by assigning distributive justice effective, if not formal, priority over other imperatives.” Id. at 1532. He then contrasts the new baseline with that of the former “conventional” view, ably recognizing the conflict within that view, and holding that it is “[o]nly by diluting the requirements of distributive justice” that one might “manage to harmonize them with [backward-looking or deontic] dispute resolution and rights enforcement.” Id. at 1533. ↑
8. See, e.g., Samuel Scheffler, Distributive Justice, the Basic Structure and the Place of Private Law, H.L.A. Hart Memorial Lecture (May 2014), in 35 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 213, 233 (2015); Samuel Freeman, Liberalism and Distributive Justice 168, 192–93 (2018) (arguing Rawls’s principles apply to the private law); Richard L. Revesz, Regulation and Distribution, 93 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1489, 1518 (2018) (asserting distributional concerns, not just wealth maximization, should play a broader role in regulation). ↑
9. E.g., Arthur Ripstein, Private Wrongs 291 (2016); Freeman, supra note 8, at 185; Zachary Liscow, Note, Reducing Inequality on the Cheap: When Legal Rule Design Should Incorporate Equity as Well as Efficiency, 123 Yale L.J. 2478, 2486–87 (2014). ↑
10. John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement 42–43 (2001) [hereinafter Rawls, JaF] (“The two principles of justice [state] (a) Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties . . . and (b) Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle).”). ↑
11. As we noted supra note 1, Bruce Ackerman, David Lyons, and Anthony Kronman held the conventional or narrow view that private law lies outside the basic structure. But cf. Kronman, supra note 1, at 475 (suggesting that Rawls should not have narrowed). Scheffler posits that Ripstein views private law as lying within the basic structure, Scheffler, supra note 8, at 232 (“Suppose we accept that, although private law is part of the basic structure, there is nevertheless room for it to enjoy the limited independence from distributive principles that Ripstein envisions.”), but this view is contested. See Kevin A. Kordana & David H. Tabachnick, On Belling the Cat: Rawls and Tort as Corrective Justice, 92 Va. L. Rev. 1279, 1291–92 (2006) [hereinafter Kordana & Tabachnick, Belling the Cat] (interpreting Ripstein as holding the narrow view); Freeman, supra note 8, at 168 (“[For] Ripstein . . . private law ‘has a certain kind of independence’ and should lie outside the basic structure . . . ”). In his newer work, Ripstein side-steps the question. Ripstein, supra note 9, at 291 (“The specifics of Rawls’s formulation need not concern us . . . .”). Murphy holds that the private law is inside the basic structure and that any attempt at narrowing in Rawls’s The Basic Structure as Subject is predicated on a textual mistake. Liam Murphy, Institutions and the Demands of Justice, 27 Phil. & Pub. Affs. 251, 261 & n.30 (1999); Liam Murphy, The Artificial Morality of Private Law: The Persistence of An Illusion, 70 U. Toronto L.J. 453, 457 n.11 (2020) [hereinafter Murphy, Artificial Morality] (“Rawls himself proposed evaluating institutions such as property and contract solely on the basis of social justice as identified by his two principles, which do not obviously have room for values distinctively associated with private ordering.”). Freeman and Scheffler agree that the private law is part of the basic structure. See Scheffler, supra note 8; Freeman, supra note 8; see also Aditi Bagchi, Distributive Injustice and Private Law, 60 Hastings L.J. 105, 109–11 (2008) (discussing the role of distributive justice in contract law). ↑
12. H.L.A. Hart & A.M. Honoré, Causation in the Law 58 (1959). ↑
13. Guido Calabresi, Toward A Unified Theory of Torts, 1 J. Tort L. 1, 1 (2007) (“Yes, all that can go out of torts . . .”—referring to causation and the other “hornbook [elements] of liability”—“but tort law won’t cease being.”). ↑
14. George P. Fletcher, Fairness and Utility in Tort Theory, 85 Harv. L. Rev. 537, 540–43 (1972). ↑
15. Guido Calabresi, The Costs of Accidents: A Legal and Economic Analysis 70 (1970). ↑
16. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice 212–13 (2d ed. 1999) [hereinafter Rawls, TJ] (considering the possibility of strict liability). ↑

17. See, e.g., Richard A. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law 241–45 (9th ed. 2014); A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell, Punitive Damages: An Economic Analysis, 111 Harv. L. Rev. 869, 918–20 (1999) (noting defendants should face liability above the harm caused when their gain is socially illicit). ↑