There was a wide spectrum of interesting takes on the financial crisis at AALS, and no clear consensus on the causes of the crisis or the regulatory way forward. Which is good if the academy wants to avoid groupthink. But it also means there is quite a bit of theoretical and empirical work to be done. I didn’t get the sense that a revolution was afoot. Again, this could be good news, if you agree with David and Larry Cunningham and think regulatory incrementalism is in order.

But there are risks to this and I sensed frustration from some attendees with our collective progress. The risk comes with the fact that the legislative train may leave the station while we scholars are still chipping away at understanding the crisis and mapping out reform. The reform train may steam along down politically popular but economically or legally unprincipled tracks. Frankly, even if you believe executive compensation is a necessary reform area, it certainly ain’t sufficient.

Or the train may get stuck in the station. An Amtrak-style delay gives lobbyists time to do their own chipping away. Moreover, the issue attention cycle of Congress will turn to other matters leaving little done to prevent a repeat crisis.  In the Business Associations panel, someone asked what are the chances we will enjoy a 70 year run (the time between the Great Depression and our current predicament) until the next crisis?  If we are even out of the current crisis. 

AALS, Financial Crisis, Legal Scholarship | Bookmark

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e2012876c44406970c

Links to weblogs that reference Final Thoughts on AALS: