Postner's Economic Efficiency and the Critique of Social Justice
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61860/jigp.v4i3.349Keywords:
Economic Efficiency; Social Justice; Distributive Justice; Legal Theory; Pancasila.Abstract
The dominance of the law and economics approach, championed by Richard A. Posner, promotes wealth maximization and economic efficiency as the paramount objectives of law. This creates a fundamental gap with distributive justice theories, which posit that the law's primary ethical duty is to ensure equity and moral fairness. The central problem is the apparent tension between a legal system designed for optimal resource allocation and one obligated to deliver social justice, raising critical questions about law's normative foundations. This dialectic is especially significant for pluralistic jurisdictions like Indonesia, where legal ideals must reconcile with socio-cultural values. This study employs qualitative method with a normative-philosophical research design, conducting a critical analysis of primary texts from Posner, Rawls, Sen, and Dworkin. The analytical method involves philosophical argumentation and comparative legal theory to deconstruct the premises and implications of both paradigms. The analysis reveals that while economic efficiency offers a valuable practical framework for predicting behavioral incentives and evaluating legal outcomes, it operates within an amoral calculus that fails to address fundamental questions of rights, dignity, and equitable distribution. As a result, efficiency cannot support social justice as the ethical cornerstone of law. For Indonesia, this necessitates a constitutional synthesis where efficiency-based instruments are consciously subordinated to and harmonized with the principles of Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution, which enshrine social justice. Therefore, it is recommended that Indonesian legal scholarship and policymaking explicitly adopt an integrated framework where efficiency serves as a tool within, not the goal of, a justice-oriented legal system.
Downloads
References
Bovi, M. (2025). Tolerable Inequality According to John Rawls. The Dual Challenge of Tolerable Economic Inequality, Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-97066-5_6
Cooter, R., & Ulen, T (ed). (2017). Methodologies of Law and Economics. Pearson. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782540489
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://pubhtml5.com/enuk/cykh/Creswell_and_Poth%2C_2018%2C_Qualitative_Inquiry_4th/
Donnelly, J. (2013). Universal human rights in theory and practice (3rd ed.). Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/9780801467493
Dworkin, R. (1986). Law’s empire. Harvard University Press. https://www.filosoficas.unam.mx/~cruzparc/empire.pdf
Efendy, N., Hasan, A., Umar, M. (2023). Membangun Hukum Yang Adil Dalam Bingkai Moralitas Pancasila. Indonesian Journal of Islamic Jurisprudence, Economic and Legal Theory, 1(4), 656–678. https://doi.org/10.62976/ijijel.v1i4.195
Hanum, W. N., Handayani, I. G. A. K. R., & Tegnan, H. (2023). The Geothermal Development Policy on Environmental in Indonesia and the USA. Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System, 3(2), 160–184. https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v3i2.85
Kalverkämper, J. (2023). Re-imagining Criminal Justice: The Ethical Fusion of Substantive Law and Procedural Law. Social Science Chronicle, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.56106/ssc.2023.006
Kianzad, B. (2024). Beyond Justice Versus Efficiency: Reconciling Law and Economics Approaches to Fairness. Law and Economics of Justice, Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. 91–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56822-0_6
Love, J. H. (2024). Profit shifting and tax competition policy: a global justice perspective. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 21(3), 337–359. https://doi.org/10.1108/cpoib-06-2024-0061
O’Connell, S., Boles, J., McClellan, R., & Demers, D. (2023). Mapping food security in Arkansas. Applied Geography, 158, 103020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.103020
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
Patton, M. Q. (2022). Impact-driven Qualitative Research and Evaluation. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Design, 1165–1180. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529770278.n71
Pertiwi, M. D., Firdausy, A. G., & Kharisma, D. B. (2024). Problematics of Land Dispute Resolution in Indonesia. Proceedings of the International Conference for Democracy and National Resilience (ICDNR 2024), 94–104. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-634-5_12
Piketty, T. (2022). A Brief History of Equality. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674275898
Posner, R. A. (1974). Economic Analysis of Law. Stanford Law Review, 26(3), 711. https://doi.org/10.2307/1227682
Posner, R. A., & Parisi, F. (2016). Law and Economics. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785360848
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674042605
Roestamy, M., Martin, A. Y., Rusli, R. K., & Fulazzaky, M. A. (2022). A review of the reliability of land bank institution in Indonesia for effective land management of public interest. Land Use Policy, 120, 106275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106275
Sandel, M. J. (2020). The tyranny of merit: What’s become of the common good? Farrar, Straus and Giroux. https://www.zo-nws.nl/sites/default/files/webform/prikkers/_sid_/pdf-the-tyranny-of-merit-whats-become-of-the-common-good-michael-j-sandel-pdf-download-free-book-6d90602.pdf
Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674054578
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Amrizal Siagian, Achmad Muchtarom, Ario Karyono, Biem Triani Benjamin, Faisal Santiago
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
