Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T01:55:31.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Two Motifs of “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead” and Its Heirs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Charles R. Epp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Marc Galanter's 1974 article “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead” has been exceptionally influential, and for good reason. Its analytic elegance and power, particularly in its famous distinction between repeat players and one-shotters, have illuminated many aspects of the legal process. Yet the article's influence also stems at least in part, I suspect, from the tension between its two related but very different motifs. It predicted that resource-rich parties will generally fare better than other parties in the legal system, and provided a coherent theoretical account of why: because such parties are more likely to be “repeat players” that have the organizational and resource capacities to “play for rules” over the long term. The “Haves” article also, on this basis, provided a coherent theoretical account of how the fates of “have not” parties in the legal system may be improved: by upgrading their capacities for longer-term strategic action, principally through increasing the funding of legal services, improving access to legal knowledge and skills, and organizing diffuse “have not” classes as repeat players. In these and other ways, “have nots,” he suggested, may achieve some of the organizational and structural advantages held by the “haves” (1974:140–44). This subtext might have had its own subtitle to “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead,” such as “And How the ‘Have Nots’ Can Organize to Come Out Less Far Behind.”

Type
Comments
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 33 , Issue 4: Do the “Haves” Still Come Out Ahead? , 1999 , pp. 1089 - 1098
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the Law and Society Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albiston, Catherine (1999) “The Rule of Law and the Litigation Process: The Paradox of Losing by Winning,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 869–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dotan, Yoav (1999) “Do the ‘Haves’ Still Come Out Ahead? Resource Inequalities in Ideological Courts: The Case of the Israeli High Court of Justice,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 1059–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., & Suchman, Mark C. (1999) “When the ‘Haves’ Hold Court: Speculations on the Internalization of Law,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 941–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewick, Patricia, & Silbey, Susan S. (1998) The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewick, Patricia, & Silbey, Susan S. (1999) “Common Knowledge and Ideological Critique: The Significance of Knowing That the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 1025–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farole, Donald J. Jr. (1999) “Reexamining Litigant Success in State Supreme Courts,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 1043–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galanter, Marc (1974) “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change,” 9 Law & Society Rev. 95–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galanter, Marc, & Rogers, Joel (1991) “A Transformation of American Business Disputing? Some Preliminary Observations.” Disputes Processing Research Program Working Paper, DPRP 10–3. Madison, WI: Institute for Legal Studies.Google Scholar
Gilliom, John (1997) “Everyday Surveillance, Everyday Resistance: Computer Monitoring in the Lives of the Appalachian Poor,” 16 Studies in Law, Politics, & Society 275–97.Google Scholar
Harris, Beth (1999) “Representing Homeless Families: Repeat Player Implementation Strategies,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 911–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynie, Stacia L. (1995) “Resource Inequality and Regional Variations in Litigation Outcomes in the Philippine Supreme Court,” 48 Political Research Q. 371–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendley, Kathryn, Murrell, Peter, & Ryterman, Randi (1999) “Do Repeat Players Behave Differently in Russia? Contractual and Litigation Behavior of Russian Enterprises,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 833–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinsey, Karyl A., & Stalans, Loretta J. (1999) “Which ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead and Why? Cultural Capital and Legal Mobilization in Frontline Law Enforcement,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 993–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M. (1998) Legal Advocacy: Lawyers and Nonlawyers at Work. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, Susan E. (1990) The Poor in Court: The Legal Services Program and Supreme Court Decision Making. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, Michael W. (1994) Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Reginald S., Mishler, William, & Songer, Donald S. (1992) “Ideology, Status, and the Differential Success of Direct Parties before the Supreme Court,” 86 American J. of Political Science 464–71.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R., Sheehan, Reginald S., & Haire, Susan Brodie (1999) “Do the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead over Time? Applying Galanter's Framework to Decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 1925–1988,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 811–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar