Two of the best ideas of the last half-century describe strategies for using legal remedies to solve social problems. One is the concentration of liability on a well-situated problem solver, or “least cost-avoider,” who can always contract out the work to be done (thus reflecting Chicago’s Very Best and Biggest Idea, the Coase Theorem). But another is the opposite of the first, for it involves the distribution, or spreading, of legal responsibility across many potential problem solvers, who might cooperate or work alone. Comparative negligence and Superfund liability for environmental harms reflect this strategy.

This Chicago’s Best Ideas talk explores this tug-of-war, or evolutionary pattern, involving the two opposing strategies. How does law know which to use? Most important, what is the likely evolution of law as citizens call on Big Government to solve their big problems, like climate change or access to health care, and how does technological change alter the likely balance between these two strategies?

Saul Levmore is the William B. Graham Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School. This talk was recorded on October 21, 2014, as part of the Chicago's Best Ideas lecture series.