The 1990s were the Golden Age of Economic Analysis of Law (EAL) in Peru and other Latin American countries. It entered law faculties not only through the direct incorporation of law courses but also through the adoption of its teaching methodology in other courses. Simultaneously, EAL gained ground in Public Administration and, especially, in the newly established regulatory, consumer protection, and competition law bodies.
Although the advocacy for EAL has diminished over time and some of its initial proposals have been moderated, its methodology continues to be used without acknowledging the underlying political and moral philosophical assumptions. EAL carries a set of assumptions that should not remain concealed under the guise of methodological neutrality.
The pronounced economism of more traditional EAL trends, its tendency to consider individual preferences as the starting point for welfare valuations, its strong skepticism or ethical subjectivism, and its critical view of the regulatory or promotional role of the State—along with its consequentialist approach—prompt us to examine the theoretical assumptions influencing postulates from utilitarian or libertarian schools. This document aims to uncover and critically analyze these assumptions.
Finally, some EAL theses have been evaluated within the context of a Constitutional State of Law and their potential compatibility with the principles it upholds.
