Professor Yashiro applied standard logic of Law and Economics to Labor market and deduced conclusions which are commonplace among economists but surprising among lawyers; legal intervention for the purpose of protecting workers’ job will hurt the least advantaged by causing their unemployment etc. Although such inference looks solid within the model of microeconomics, we still have to wait and see the results of each policy because in real markets competition is far from perfect and transactions are anything but costless. Professor Ihori discussed the social and economic reactions, both facilitating and obstructing, to big policies: financial, social welfare, and tax reforms. Law, he said, sometimes works in order to have interest groups trust government's commitment. But since full commitment of‘ ‘at any cost’ type in such cases is neither feasible politically nor good as itself, people will understand such commitment of the government or of the party in power in more political terms than legal. Professor Suzumura analyzed the concept of Pareto efficiency and defended ’compound-eye approach’, i.e. at the same time consequentialist and proceduralist in evaluating social institutions. Considering the fact that our social institutions are operating in the circumstance of huge transaction cost (TC which makes the whole process pass-dependent and historical the explanatory power of modeling theories of social choice school might be limited especially when the number of the actors are millions or more rather than two or three. Professor Kamemoto’s study of Ronald Coase was impressive that main implication of Coase’s concept of TC is rather to analyze and explain the existence of such social institutions as laws, corporations and markets in the real world with TC rather than to speculate about counterfactual world of no TC as in so called Coase's theorem. It is obvious that economists would be better with legal training and lawyers with economist’s perspective. There are vast area of theoretical interest between law and economics. But practically, we should also have to know the limitation of each knowledge while maintaining common sense skepticism to both.
