Economist Dani Rodrik wrote a very thought-provoking post on his blog last week about the different definitions out there for "Rule of Law" among economists and legal scholars.

Am I the only economist guilty of using the term abundantly without having a good fix on what it really means? Well, maybe the first one to confess to it. So central has the concept become in discussions on "institutions and growth" that it has become unavoidable. It's sort of like no-economists talking about, say comparative advantage, without quite getting what that means.

Well, actually not quite. What economists mean by comparative advantage is clear. But legal scholars and political theorists have many conceptions of what the "rule of law" means; in fact, the meaning itself is contested. That, among many other things, is what I have learned from reading a fascinating new manuscript from Michael Trebilcock and Ron Daniels–ranging from very "thin" descriptions (rule of law is whatever provides for stability and predictability) to "thick" conceptualizations (rule of law as a form of political morality).

To be honest, I had not thought about this before. I am also guilty of throwing this term around (often) without thinking about its meaning. I probably lean more toward the "thin" definition Rodrik mentions, but another way of saying it is when a country institutes at least a basic set of laws governing the behavior of individuals, the government, and businesses, and then enforces those rules in a fair manner.

Maybe that lacks sufficient clarity to be at all useful, but that's essentially what pops in my mind when I think about this subject. This is no doubt driven by my China experience. Whenever I hear critics talk about China not following the rule of law, I think about lack of enforcement, non-transparency, and corruption – that's what feeds my thinking here.