经济与社会科学2020sciencedirect.com
律师数量每增加 1%，经济增长下降 3%（1986）
For every 1% increase in the number of lawyers, economic growth falls 3% (1986)
入门 · 约 30 分钟读完前置知识：基础统计学、宏观经济学常识
导读
这篇 1986 年的论文用跨国截面数据检验一个假说：律师数量每增加 1%，经济增长率下降约 3%。作者自己也承认样本小、检验粗糙，只是给出初步印证。
HN 关注点：焦点是这一相关性是否可靠，以及律师多到底是经济摩擦的信号还是法治健全的体现。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：质疑 2 补充 1 亲历 1
质疑GDP 增长不是衡量社会的普适指标，律师带来的'拖累'可能是在阻止更大的危害
假设一下：如果对确诊绝症的老年人实施安乐死，GDP 年增长会怎样？我的意思不是说这是好事，而是 GDP 增长并非衡量社会好坏的普适指标。往水源里倒有毒废料也许能提高 GDP 增长，而律师和集体诉讼的威慑恰恰阻止了这种行为——这种'拖累'未必是坏事。
throwaway5752查看英文原文
Hypothetically, what would the net change to the GDP year over year be if we killed all people over a threshold age when they were diagnosed with a terminal disease? My point is not that this would be a good idea, it's that GDP growth is not a good measure for a society across the board. Maybe GDP growth would be higher if we could simply dump toxic waste in water supplies, and the threat of lawyers/class action suits that helps prevent that behavior hurts economic growth.
质疑1986 年的粗糙统计不可靠；律师多反而可能是法治健全、利于增长的信号
论文自述'尽管检验粗糙、样本小、解释可能有歧义，结果仍初步印证了假说'——听起来不太可靠，何况是 1986 年，当时对统计和假设检验的理解远不如今天成熟。反过来看，律师多也可以说明这是一个法治社会：有强大的法律制度、分权等，这些都是可持续增长可能必需的要素，法律自然成为有吸引力的职业。律师与科学家、工程师、教师等职业或许存在某个最优比例，但律师过多的社会，增长大概率仍好于完全没有律师的社会。
SkyMarshal查看英文原文
>This paper uses international cross-section data to provide a simple test of this hypothesis. Despite the crudeness of the test, the small size of the sample and possible ambiguities in interpretation, the results provide a tentative confirmation of the hypothesis. Doesn’t sound very reliable, especially being from 1986 when we generally had a much less sophisticated understanding of the intricacies of statistics and hypothesis testing. Conversely to the paper’s implication, too many lawyers can also be seen as evidence of a society based on the rule of the law, with strong legal institutions, processes, separation of powers and other patterns of integrity, and lack of rule by decree in any form, all of which are valuable and possibly necessary components of sustainable economic growth. In such a society, law will naturally be one of the more prestigious and attractive professions. I’m sure there’s some optimal ratio of lawyers to scientists|engineers|teachers|builders and other productive professions, where exceeding that ratio results in lower than optimal growth. But even a society with too many lawyers probably has stronger growth than one with none.
亲历亲历者视角：律师供给过剩导致滥诉和经济僵化，论文结论符合现实
作为前律师，我觉得这很有道理。美国律师数量尤其离谱：律考对母语者通过率很高，又有数百家法学院，市场充斥着为谋生而执业的差律师，导致大量滥诉、劣质法律工作留下长期成本，以及许多本不必要的商业'法律化'。此外，最好的律师往往进入'白鞋'律所，把法律资本出租给打压消费者和竞争者的企业，使经济日益僵化。
kevmo查看英文原文
As a former lawyer, this makes a lot of sense to me. America in particular has an insane number of lawyers. The bar exam isn't actually that hard to pass (look at the pass rates for native English speakers, they're high) and there are 100s of law schools, so the market is flooded with bad lawyers looking to scratch a living. This results in a lot of bad lawsuits being filed, shoddy legal work that bears costs long into the future, and a general legalization of many aspects of business that probably often doesn't need to happen. In addition to the all of the bad legal work, the best lawyers also often go to the "white shoe" law firms. In America, these law firms hire out their legal capital to corporate world that engages in beating down consumers and competition, which is resulting in an increasingly monolithic and sclerotic economy.
补充律师是减少社会摩擦的必要成本，虽不直接创造价值但没有更差的替代方案
抛开对错不谈，这并不意外：律师、警察、医生、销售等都属于减少社会低效的机制。没人想要律师，但有律师的世界好过没有律师的世界。而且律师费是零和的：你花 1 美元请律师，对方也得花，社会浪费了这些钱和时间，全都不产生价值。但反过来，没有律师，你就得花钱雇雇佣兵了。
CoffeeDregs查看英文原文
Putting aside is-this-right-or-wrong?: this is unsurprising: lawyers (many in my family), police, doctors, sales people, etc represent mechanisms to reduce more problematic inefficiencies in our society. No one (including lawyers I know) wants lawyers; but a world-with-lawyers is better than a world-without-lawyers. Doctors: why do you go to the doctor? To improve your body? Almost never; it's always to reduce problems or prevent them, a cost you only incur because of the fallibility of your body. Sales people: imperfect information in society. Police: lovely folks; would be much better if we didn't have people being assholes so that we needed police. Then add in all of the secondary effects of exploitation/corruption of these not-productive-and-shouldn't-exist positions... Further for every $1 you spend on an attorney, someone else has to spend $$ and the society has wasted that $$$ plus that time, none of which is productive. On the other hand, get rid of lawyers and you're going to spend $$$ on mercenaries...
相关资源
从这篇论文所有 HN 讨论帖的全部评论里整理出来的链接。
历次讨论
- 2020Hacker News 讨论帖248 分 · 89 评
同领域还值得读
一切的回报率，1870–2015
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015
利用1870–2015年多国的长期数据，估算股票、住房等各类资本的回报率，并将其与经济增长率进行比较。
经济与社会科学2019 · 487 分 · 260 评进阶 · 约 100 分钟编辑精选一切资产的回报率，1870–2015
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015
构建了 1870–2015 年 16 个国家的长周期资产回报数据集，覆盖股票、住房、政府债券和短期票据，系统比较各类资产的真实回报与波动性。
经济与社会科学2018 · 215 分 · 151 评进阶 · 约 120 分钟编辑精选一切资产的回报率，1870–2015（2019）
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)
这篇发表于《经济学季刊》的论文构建了 1870–2015 年间 16 个主要发达国家的股票、债券、房地产等资产收益率的长周期数据库。
经济与社会科学2024 · 190 分 · 148 评进阶 · 约 80 分钟编辑精选想法是否越来越难找？
Are ideas getting harder to find?
探讨“想法是否越来越难找到”：通过衡量多个领域的“研究生产率”，发现维持相同的增长需要投入指数级增长的研究资源，即研究效率在持续下降。
经济与社会科学2016 · 182 分 · 106 评入门 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选比特币与区块链的经济极限
The Economic Limits of Bitcoin and the Blockchain
芝加哥大学 Eric Budish 的论文从经济学角度分析比特币与区块链的根本限制：核心论点是只要攻击网络（双花或砸盘做空）的收益超过挖矿成本，51% 算力攻击就有利可图，而挖矿…
经济与社会科学2018 · 176 分 · 37 评进阶 · 约 90 分钟编辑精选