This article underlines contemporary economic sociology's lack of interest – until recently – in legal phenomena, unlike the close attention paid by two historic figures in ‘economic sociology’, Max Weber and John R. Commons, to the relationships between law and economy. It argues that to grasp fully the importance of the legal dimension in socio-economic analysis, we must return to their foundational insights. However, they particularly stress differences between Weber and Commons as to the unity or heterogeneity of law and the economy, the role of ethics, the search for an all-encompassing approach in the construction of ideal-types, the various forms of constraint that characterize law (whether psychological, economic, or physical), and the distinction between state law and non-state law. The latter element is why the authors argue that due consideration for legal plurality should be a central thread in any sociological analysis of the interplay between law and the economy.

This article examines the reliance placed on expert evidence in prosecutions of health professionals for gross negligence manslaughter, where juries must decide whether conduct goes beyond civil negligence and constitutes the crime of involuntary manslaughter. It argues that the test for liability is vague and examines some of the consequences of this. Given the vagueness of the offence, jurors are likely to place great reliance on expert medical evidence. Little is known about how experts negotiate the legal process, empirically speaking: how they approach their task, how they view their role as expert witnesses, and the attitudes, biases, and beliefs that may underpin their testimony. Drawing on the experiences and perceptions often medical experts, this article explores how experts manage the vagueness inherent in the task of interpreting and applying gross negligence. Experts appear to go beyond offering purely medical opinion and enjoy engaging with law and the legal process.

Right to Buy is one of the most successful schemes devised to extend home ownership to those otherwise excluded. Its introduction by Margaret Thatcher and endorsement by New Labour provide a critical indicator of those governments' neo-liberal credentials. This article suggests that one of the key achievements of the Right to Buy was to obscure inequalities inherent in a project of democratization via property ownership. It examines New Labour's political reform of local authority landlordism and leaseholder rights and exposes the vulnerability of Right to Buy lessees and their successors in title. It argues that the promise of inclusion via home ownership is a more conditional promise than generally recognized, in some cases impoverishing rather than enriching. It concludes by reflecting on the importance of scrutinizing schemes which purport to democratize ownership, observing that the position of Right to Buy leaseholders is unlikely to improve following the abandonment of social reform projects by the coalition government.

This article examines the debate within corporate governance about the appointment of female non-executive directors (NEDs). The first part tracks the diversity story that corporate governance tells about itself from the Cadbury Report (1992) to the Davies Report (2011). The second sets out the evidence used to support the argument that female appointments enhance profits and corporate profile. The third part presents the authors' empirical analysis of FTSE 100 companies and female nonexecutive board membership, and concludes that there is little evidence that companies with female board membership display different characteristics from those without. Industry sector emerges as a significant factor in female appointments. The idea that women should be appointed to boards to increase corporate profitability and profile is not strongly supported by this analysis. A social justice argument based upon the right of woman to equal economic participation opportunities provides a much superior articulation of the need for boardroom diversity.

Fair entry into the legal profession promotes legal legitimacy and the inclusiveness of the administration of justice. This article asks which individual factors predict success in the competition for entry to the Bar of England and Wales. Using data from 2,178 British aspiring barristers, it finds that university attended and attainment at university and in the BVC were the strongest predictors of gaining pupillage. Ethnic minorities were initially disadvantaged in the competition for pupillages, but this became statistically insignificant when taking into account attainment and type of university. However, those aged 30 and above were still disadvantaged in securing pupillages when controlling for attainment and university. The article highlights the challenges of fair selection into a graduate-entry legal profession. Entry is reliant on the profile of graduates emerging from the prior education system where ascribed characteristics such as ethnicity, attainment, and university type influence opportunities.

This article considers three different historical events from the point of view of their connections to aspects of the history of liberal political reason: the actions of the British in New South Wales in the early nineteenth century in their claim to sovereignty over Indigenous lands; the establishment of Aboriginal missions and subsequent removal of Aboriginal children in the early twentieth century; and the Northern Territory Emergency Response and suspension of the Australian Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act (1975) early in the twenty-first century. The aim is to point to gaps between present claims about liberalism and ‘actual existing liberalism’, review the basis for examining accounts of governance deploying ‘authoritarian liberalism’ and ‘race war’ as central concepts, and call into question the Northern Territory campaign as an ‘exceptional’ event.