1 Calliess, Gralf-Peter, Dietz, Thomas, Konradi, Wioletta, Nieswandt, Holger, and Sosa, Fabian, Transformations of Commercial Law, in Transforming the Golden Age Nation State, 83 (Achim Hurrelmann, Stephan Leibfried, Kerstin Martens, and Peter Mayer eds., 2007); Calliess, Gralf-Peter, Freiling, Jörg, and see article by Renner, Moritz, Law, the State, and Private Ordering: Evolutionary Explanations of Institutional Change in Vol. 9 No. 04 German Law Journal (2008); with a greater focus on the EU see also Cafaggi, Fabrizio, Rethinking Private Regulation in the European Regulatory Space, in Reframing Self-regulation in European Private Law, 3 (Fabrizio Cafaggi ed., 2006).Google Scholar

2 For broad overviews see Dosi, Giovanni, Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation, 26 Journal of Economic Literature 1120 (1988); Geoffrey M. Hodgson, Economics and Evolution. Bringing Life Back into Economics (1993); Nelson, Richard, Recent Theorizing about Economic Change, 33 Journal of Economic Literature 48 (1995); Paolo P. Saviotti, Technological Evolution, Variety and the Economy (1996); Stan J. Metcalfe, Evolutionary Economics and Creative Destruction (1998); Nelson, Richard and Winter, Sidney G., Evolutionary Theorizing in Economics, 16 Journal of Economic Perspectives 23 (2002); Carsten Herrmann-Pillath, Grundriß der Evolutionsökonomik (2002); Ulrich Witt, The Evolving Economy: Essays on the Evolutionary Approach to Economics (2003); The Evolutionary Foundations of Economics (Kurt Dopfer ed., 2005).Google Scholar

3 Joseph A. Schumpeter, Theory of Economic Development, 2.ed. (1934) (1.ed., 1911).Google Scholar

4 John M. Clark, Competition as a Dynamic Process (1961); Ernst Heuss, Allgemeine Markttheorie (1965); Dynamic Competition and Public Policy: Technology, Innovation, and Antitrust Issues (Jerry Ellig ed., 2002).Google Scholar

5 Richard Nelson and Sidney G. Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (1982).Google Scholar

6 von Hayek, Friedrich A., Notes on the Evolution of Systems of Rules of Conduct, in New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and the History of Ideas, 66 (Friedrich A. von Hayek, ed., 1978); Friedrich A. von Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty, Vol.1: Rules and Order (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Hodgson, , supra note 2; See article by Laing, Bart du, Dual Inheritance Theory, Contract Law, and Institutional Change – Towards the Co-evolution of Behaviour and Institutions, in Vol. 9 No. 04 German Law Journal (2008).Google Scholar

8 See in much more detail von Hayek, Friedrich A., Competition as a Discovery Procedure, in New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and the History of Ideas, 179 (Friedrich A. von Hayek, ed., 1978); Kerber, Wolfgang, Wettbewerb als Hypothesentest: Eine evolutorische Konzeption wissenschaffenden Wettbewerbs, in Dimensionen des Wettbewerbs: Seine Rolle in der Entstehung und Ausgestaltung von Wirtschaftsordnungen, 29 (Karl von Delhaes and Ulrich Fehl eds., 1997); Kerber, Wolfgang and Saam, Nicole, Competition as a Test of Hypotheses: Simulation of Knowledge-generating Market Processes, 4 Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation (JASSS), No.3 (2001); available at <http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/4/3/2.html>, last accessed 27 March, 2008.,+last+accessed+27+March,+2008.>Google Scholar

9 For a thorough recent analysis of the potential positive effects of (maintaining) diversity in market competition see Gisela Linge, Competition Policy, Innovation, and Diversity (2008).Google Scholar

10 Karl R. Popper, Objective Knowledge – An Evolutionary Approach (1972); David A. Harper, Entrepreneurship and the Market Process: An Enquiry into the Growth of Knowledge (1996).Google Scholar

11 For a direct comparison of market competition and institutional (or regulatory) competition from an evolutionary economics perspective, see Vanberg, Viktor and Kerber, Wolfgang, Institutional Competition Among Jurisdictions: An Evolutionary Approach, 5 Constitutional Political Economy 193 (1994).Google Scholar

12 Hayek, supra note 6; von Hayek, Friedrich A., The Results of Human Action but not of Human Design, in Studies in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, 95 (Friedrich A. von Hayek ed., 1967).Google Scholar

13 For a much more detailed overview see Eckardt, Martina, Explaining Legal Change from an Evolutionary Economics Perspective, in Vol. 9 No. 04 German Law Journal (2008); Martina Eckardt, Technischer Rechtswandel und Rechtsevolution. Ein Beitrag zur ökonomischen Theorie des Rechtsentwicklung am Beispiel des deutschen Unfallschadensrechts im 19. Jahrhundert (2001).Google Scholar

14 Hayek, , supra note 6.Google Scholar

15 Priest, George L., The Common Law Process and the Selection of Efficient Rules, 6 Journal of Legal Studies 65 (1977); Cooter, Robert D. and Kornhauser, Lewis, Can Litigation Improve the Law Without the Help of the Judges? 9 Journal of Legal Studies 129 (1980); Alessi, Louis De and Staaf, Robert J., The Common Law Process: Efficiency or Order?, 2 Constitutional Political Economy 107 (1991); Richard A. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law, 5.ed. (1998); Robert D. Cooter and Thomas Ulen, Law and Economics, 5.ed. (2007).Google Scholar

16 See, for example, the textbook of Dennis C. Mueller, Public Choice III, 3.ed. (2003); for an overview about evolutionary approaches to public choice see Michael Wohlgemuth, Evolutionary Approaches to Politics, 55 Kyklos 223 (2002).Google Scholar

17 Douglass C. North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (1990); Denzau, Arthur T. and North, Douglass C., Shared Mental Models: Ideologies and Institutions, 47 Kyklos 3 (1994).Google Scholar

18 Meier, Alfred and Haury, Susanne, A Cognitive-Evolutionary Theory of Economic Policy, in The Evolution of Economic Systems. Essays in Honour of Ota Sik, 77 (Kurt Dopfer and Karl-F. Raible eds., 1990); Slembeck, Tilman, The Formation of Economic Policy: A Cognitive-Evolutionary Approach to Policy-Making, 8 Constitutional Political Economy 225 (1997).Google Scholar

19 Arthur, Brian, Self-Reinforcing Mechanisms in Economics, in The Economy as an Evolving Complex System, 9 (Philip W. Anderson, Kenneth Arrow and David Pines eds., 1988); Paul David, Clio and the Economics of QWERTY, 75 American Economic Review 332 (1985); Dosi, supra note 2.Google Scholar

20 North, supra note 17; Hathaway, Oona A., Path Dependence in the Law: The Course and Pattern of Legal Change in a Common Law System, 86 Iowa Law Review 601 (2001); Martina Eckardt, Technischer Rechtswandel und Rechtsevolution. Ein Beitrag zur ökonomischen Theorie der Rechtsentwicklung am Beispiel des deutschen Unfallschadensrechts im 19. Jahrhundert (2001); Kerber, Wolfgang and Heine, Klaus, Institutional Evolution, Regulatory Competition and Path Dependence, in Evolutionary Analysis of Economic Policy, 191 (Pavel Pelikan and Gerhard Wegner eds., 2003).Google Scholar

21 Kahan, Marcel and Klausner, Michael, Path Dependence in Corporate Contracting: Increasing Returns, Herd Behavior and Cognitive Biases, 74 Washington Law Quarterly 347 (1996).Google Scholar

22 Kerber and Heine, supra note 20, 211.Google Scholar

23 Dosi, Giovanni, Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A Suggested Reinterpretation of the Determinants and Directions of Technical Change, 11 Research Policy 147 (1982).Google Scholar

24 Kerber and Heine, supra note 20, 200 - 213.Google Scholar

25 North, supra note 17.Google Scholar

26 Tiebout, Charles M., A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures, 64 Journal of Political Economy 416 (1956); Vanberg and Kerber, supra note 11; Jeanne-Mey Sun and Jacques Pelkmans, Regulatory Competition in the Single Market, 33 Journal of Common Market Studies 67 (1995); Bratton, William W. and McCahery, Joseph A., The New Economics of Jurisdictional Competition: Devolutionary Federalism in a Second-Best World, 86 The Georgetown Law Journal 201 (1997); Oates, Wallace E., An Essay on Fiscal Federalism, 37 Journal of Economic Literature 1120 (1999); Ogus, Anthony, Competition between National Legal Systems: A Contribution of Economic Analysis to Comparative Law, 48 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 405 (1999); Van den Bergh, Roger J., Towards an Institutional Legal Framework for Regulatory Competition in Europe, 53 Kyklos 435 (2000); Regulatory Competition and Economic Integration. Comparative Perspectives (Daniel C. Esty and Damien Gerardin eds., (2001); From Economic to Legal Competition. New Perspectives on Law and Institutions in Europe (Alain Marciano and Jean M. Josselin eds., 2003); Kerber, Wolfgang, European System of Private Laws: An Economic Perspective, in The Making of European Private Law (Fabrizio Cafaggi and Horatia Muir Watt eds., forthcoming 2008).Google Scholar

27 See, for example, Behrens, Peter, Voraussetzungen und Grenzen der Rechtsfortbildung durch Rechtsvereinheitlichung, 50 Rabels Zeitschrift 35 (1986); Easterbrook, Frank H., Federalism and European Business Law, 14 International Review of Law and Economics 125 (1994); Roger Van den Bergh, Subsidiarity as an Economic Demarcation Principle and the Emergence of European Private Law, 5 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 129 (1998); particularly from an evolutionary economics perspective see Kerber, Wolfgang, Applying Evolutionary Economics to Economic Policy: the Example of Competitive Federalism, in Economics, Evolution and the State: The Governance of Complexity, 296 (Kurt Dopfer ed., 2005).Google Scholar

28 For this discussion see Oates, Wallace E. and Schwab, Robert M., Economic Competition among Jurisdictions: Efficiency Enhancing or Distortion Inducing?, 35 Journal of Public Economics 333 (1988); Hauser, Heinz and Hösli, Madeleine, Harmonization or Regulatory Competition in the EC (and the EEA)?, 46 Aussenwirtschaft 497 (1991); Revesz, Richard L., Rehabilitating Interstate Competition: Rethinking the ‘Race to the Bottom’ Rationale for Federal Environmental Regulation, New York University Law Review 1210 (1992); Sun and Pelkmans, supra note 26; David Vogel, Trading Up: Consumer and Environmental Regulation in the Global Economy (1995); Bratton and McCahery, supra note 26; Sinn, Hans-Werner, The Selection Principle and Market Failure in Systems Competition, 88 Journal of Public Economics 247 (1997); Garcimartín, Francisco, Regulatory Competition: A Private International Law Approach, 8 European Journal of Law and Economics 251 (1999); Trachtman, Joel P., Regulatory Competition and Regulatory Jurisdiction, 3 Journal of International Economic Law 331 (2000); Van den Bergh, supra note 26; Esty and Gerardin, supra note 26; Eva Maria Kieninger, Wettbewerb der Privatrechtsordnungen im Europäischen Binnenmarkt (2002); Heine, Klaus and Kerber, Wolfgang, European Corporate Laws, Regulatory Competition and Path Dependence, 13 European Journal of Law and Economics 43 (2002); Marciano and Josselin, supra note 26; Kerber, supra note 26.Google Scholar

29 See Calliess et al. (2007), supra note 1.Google Scholar

30 For a discussion about the specific problems for policy recommendations from an evolutionary economics perspective see Gerhard Wegner, Economic Policy from an Evolutionary Perspective, 153 Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 485 (1997).Google Scholar

31 For the many forms of private governance see Oliver E. Williamson, The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting (1985); Robert C. Ellickson, Order Without Law: How Neighbours Settle Disputes (1991); Gillian K. Hadfield, Privatizing Commercial Law, 24 Regulation 40 (2001); Avinash K. Dixit, Lawlessness and Economics: Alternatives Modes of Governance (2004); Furubotn, Erik and Rudolf Richter, Institutions and Economic Theory: The Contribution of the New Institutional Economics, 2.ed. (2005); Thráinn Eggertsson, Imperfect Institutions: Possibilities and Limits of Reform (2005); Oliver E. Williamson, The Economics of Governance, 95 American Economic Review 1 (2005); Avner Greif, Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy: Lessons from Medieval Trade (2006); Fabrizio Cafaggi, Rethinking Private Regulation in the European Regulatory Space, in Reframing Self-Regulation in European Private Law, 3 (Fabrizio Cafaggi ed., 2006).Google Scholar

32 Calliess, et al. (2007), supra note 1.Google Scholar

33 Therefore the Schumpeterian entrepreneur can also be applied to legal innovations; see, for example, Doreen McBarnet, Legal Creativity: Law, Capital and Legal Avoidance, in Lawyers in a Postmodern World: Translation and Transgression, 73 (Maureen Cain and Christine Harrington eds., 1994); Peter Gardner, A Role of the Business Attorney in the Twenty-First Century: Adding Value to the Client's Enterprise in the Knowledge Economy, 7 Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review 17 (2003).Google Scholar

34 Romano, Roberta, Law as a Product: Some Pieces of the Incorporation Puzzle, 1 Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 225 (1985).Google Scholar

35 For this distinction see Kerber, Wolfgang and Budzinski, Oliver, Towards a Differentiated Analysis of Competition of Competition Laws, 1 Journal of Competition Law (ZWeR) 411 (2003); Klaus Heine, Regulierungswettbewerb im Gesellschaftsrecht. Zur Funktionsfähigkeit eines Wettbewerbs der Rechtsordnungen im europäischen Gesellschaftsrecht (2003).Google Scholar

36 In public choice theory the term “yardstick competition” is used for the specific intrajurisdictional mechanism that the voters, who decide on the re-election of their government, compare the performance of their government with the performance of the governments of other countries. See T. Besley and A. Case, Incumbent Behavior, Tax-setting, and Yardstick Competition, 85 American Economic Review 25 (1995); the basic idea can be found in Pierre Salmon, Decentralisation as an Incentive Scheme, 3 Oxford Review of Economic Policy 24 (1987).Google Scholar

37 For a brief economic analysis of choice of law in general, see Parisi, Francesco and Ribstein, Larry E., Choice of Law, in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, Vol. 1, 236 (Peter Newman ed., 1998).Google Scholar

38 For overviews and contributions to this discussion, see the references in note 28.Google Scholar

39 See for the legal transplant problem Legrand, Paul, The Impossibility of Legal Transplants, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 111 (1997); Berkowitz, Daniel, Pistor, Katharina and Richard, Jean-Francois, The Transplant Effect, 51 American Journal of Comparative Law 163 (2003).Google Scholar

40 For an analysis of this effect in regard to competition among corporate laws see Heine and Kerber, supra note 28.Google Scholar

41 It should be noted that this problem increases with the extent of choice of law, because choice of law also reduces the incentives for domestic interest groups to lobby for a better facilitative law.Google Scholar

42 For an evolutionary model of technological progress, which is only based upon a pure selection effect, see Metcalfe, supra note 2.Google Scholar

43 For a comprehensive analysis of variation-selection models in regard to their impact on innovation see generally Linge, supra note 9.Google Scholar

44 The famous empirical article of Romano, supra note 34 about competition of US corporate laws emphasized particularly this dimension of innovation and imitation of new corporate law innovations. For explicit evolutionary approaches to regulatory competition see Vanberg and Kerber, supra note 11 and Kerber, supra note 27.Google Scholar

45 See for the optional European contract law Stefan Grundmann, The Optional European Code on the Basis of the Acquis Communautaire - Starting Point and Trends, 10 European Law Journal, 698 (2004); Moritz Röttinger, Towards a European Code Napoleon / ABGB / BGB? Recent EC Activities for a European Contract Law, 12 European Law Journal 807 (2006).Google Scholar

46 For another very complex example of vertical competition see Röpke, Katarina and Heine, Klaus, Vertikaler Regulierungswettbewerb und europäischer Binnenmarkt - die Europäische Aktiengesellschaft als supranationales Rechtsangebot, 56 ORDO 157 (2005).Google Scholar

47 See for the following argumentation Wolfgang Kerber and Stefan Grundmann, An Optional European Contract Law Code: Advantages and Disadvantages, 21 European Journal of Law and Economics 215, 227-230 (2006).Google Scholar

48 Kerber and Grundmann, supra note 47, 227.Google Scholar

49 For sets of economic criteria see Roger Van den Bergh, Economic Criteria for Applying the Subsidiarity Principle in the European Community: The Case of Competition Policy, 16 International Review of Law and Economics 363 (1996); Kerber, Wolfgang and Heine, Klaus, Zur Gestaltung von Mehr-Ebenen-Rechtssystemen aus ökonomischer Sicht, in Vereinheitlichung und Diversität des Zivilrechts in transnationalen Wirtschaftsräumen, 167 (Claus Ott and Hans-Bernd Schäfer eds., 2002); Kerber and Grundmann, supra note 46; Kerber, supra note 26.Google Scholar

50 Oates 1132, supra note 26; for a simulation model that analyzes advantages of both centralization and decentralization see Kollman, Ken, Miller, John H. and Page, Scott E., Decentralization and the Search for Policy Solutions, 16 The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 102 (2000).Google Scholar

51 Kerber, , supra note 27.Google Scholar

52 See for the advantages of decentralized experimentation Oates, supra note 16.Google Scholar

53 Dammann, Jens and Hansmann, Henry, A Global Market for Judicial Services, Yale Law & Economics Research Paper No. 347 (2007).Google Scholar

54 For the regulatory function of the conflict of laws rules see Watt, Horatia Muir, Choice of Law in Integrated and Interconnected Markets: A Matter of Political Economy, 9 The Columbia Journal of European Law, 383 (2003).Google Scholar