Brought to you byR² AI Labs
Based on "Ideas Have Consequences" (Ash, Chen, & Naidu, 2025)
Economics is a positive science. It describes how the world is.
It measures incentives, calculates efficiency, and predicts behaviors. It claims neutrality.
The Law is normative. It decides how the world ought to be.
This study investigates what happens when a descriptive tool is inadvertently used as a moral compass.
1976. Florida. The Manne Economics Institute begins.
The curriculum wasn't politics; it was Price Theory. Taught by Nobel laureates, federal judges spent two weeks immersing themselves in supply, demand, and cost-benefit analysis.
It was a massive educational intervention.
By the 1990s, nearly 40% of all sitting federal judges had attended this crash course.
Liberal and conservative appointees alike attended, drawn by the academic rigor.
Did the course change the judges, or were pro-business judges just more likely to sign up?
To solve this selection bias, researchers found a quirk in the admissions process: First-come, first-served.
Because admission was effectively random based on mail timing, researchers could compare a judge's rulings after the camp to that same judge's rulings before.
They tracked the same minds over time as new software was installed.
Post-attendance, judges began speaking a new language.
When you view a regulation only as a "cost" to a market, it becomes harder to justify.
Agencies like the EPA and NLRB saw their rulings rejected more often by Manne-trained judges.
The course taught the Becker Model of Crime.
It posits that criminals are not "troubled" or "desperate", but rational actors weighing the benefits of a crime against the expected cost.
If crime is a rational calculation, the solution is mathematical: Raise the price.
This effect appeared immediately after judges returned from the camp.
A subtle but profound transformation occurred in how judges understood their role.
By replacing one set of mental models with another, this program reshaped the American legal landscape