This article claims that the behavioural turn in Law and Economics vindicates the approach of the pre-turn New Haven School. Available accounts of the turn offer useful methodological insights but are unconvincing, because they tend to oversimplify the literature. Building on these insights, the pre- and post-turn literature are reviewed. In so doing, three levels of analysis—normative,
... [Show full abstract] descriptive, and prescriptive—are distinguished. Comparing the two strands of literature shows that some pre-turn positions are more in accord with the post-turn literature than others. Importantly, the approach of the Chicago School—mainstream in the pre-turn literature—has been deeply influenced by the turn, whereas the one of the New Haven School—then subjacent—is substantially compatible with the post-turn mainstream positions. It follows, then, that the turn vindicates, at least theoretically, the approach of the New Haven School.
