A review by bradley_pough
The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality by Katharina Pistor
2.0
This was a slog. A paradigmatic example of why academics should not write for lay audiences.
The author's basic argument is strong. "Capital" isnt simply an economic asset, but an asset that the law codes into something the market recognizes. By coding valuable assets using the modules of private law-- property, contract, corporate law, bankruptcy, and patent--owners imbue their assets with properities like durability (protections from creditors over time) and convertibility (assurances that an asset can be converted into state money). This coding process, she argues, isnt done by state actors, although it often has the state's eventual support. Instead, capital's legal coding is done by private lawyers working for big law firms who push the limits of private law for their well heeled clients. This, as was the case with some of the toxic derivatives at the center of the financial crisis, often occurs in the state's shadow and it routinely takes quite awhile for state actors--like courts, agencies, or legislators--to weigh in on whether these assets actually deserve the legal protections that the attorneys coded for them.
Despite the force of Pistor's argument, this was a book only a lawyer could love (and maybe only a law professor). I cant imagine lay readers getting through the 20+ pages on feudal property rights and continuing to read on. If you find yourself reading law/or econ journals for fun, this one might be for you. But as a book that she sells as being accessible to a general audience, it felt an awful lot like a collection of her law review articles stuck together with a bit of connective tissue. Good for a small audience, but not right for prime time.
The author's basic argument is strong. "Capital" isnt simply an economic asset, but an asset that the law codes into something the market recognizes. By coding valuable assets using the modules of private law-- property, contract, corporate law, bankruptcy, and patent--owners imbue their assets with properities like durability (protections from creditors over time) and convertibility (assurances that an asset can be converted into state money). This coding process, she argues, isnt done by state actors, although it often has the state's eventual support. Instead, capital's legal coding is done by private lawyers working for big law firms who push the limits of private law for their well heeled clients. This, as was the case with some of the toxic derivatives at the center of the financial crisis, often occurs in the state's shadow and it routinely takes quite awhile for state actors--like courts, agencies, or legislators--to weigh in on whether these assets actually deserve the legal protections that the attorneys coded for them.
Despite the force of Pistor's argument, this was a book only a lawyer could love (and maybe only a law professor). I cant imagine lay readers getting through the 20+ pages on feudal property rights and continuing to read on. If you find yourself reading law/or econ journals for fun, this one might be for you. But as a book that she sells as being accessible to a general audience, it felt an awful lot like a collection of her law review articles stuck together with a bit of connective tissue. Good for a small audience, but not right for prime time.