FRENOS & CONTRAPESOS. ¿PORQUÉ TANTA RIQUEZA EN HOLANDA? ¿PORQUÉ TANTAS VILLAS-MISERIA EN ARGENTINA?
. Jonathan Miller. "Judicial Review and Constitutional Stability: A Sociology of the U.S. Model and its Collapse in Argentina", Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, No. 77, 1997
Déjeme agregar un argumento al eterno debate: la consistencia/inconsistencia de las Cortes Supremas de Justicia con respecto a ... sus propias decisiones. Se trata, en mi opinión, de un determinante importante —aunque descuidado por los economistas— del costo del capital. Veamos el caso de Holanda: "There is no stare decisis in Dutch law, as there is in common law, although in practice the Supreme Court will not usually overrule its own previous decisions" . Bingo. Ahora vamos a la Argentina, de la mano del magistral estudio del Prof. Jonathan Miller:
As a general rule, the U.S. Supreme Court, even with changes in membership, only reluctantly overturns past precedents, particularly recent ones, and by so limiting its conduct it increases its reputation as an institution with interests beyond ordinary partisan concerns. By contrast, the Argentine Supreme Court, lacking a tradition of stare decisis as a limit on its own interpretative options, has often taken an about face on hot political issues as a result of a change in membership.
Perhaps the clearest example in recent years of sharp shifts in Argentine Supreme Court is on the issue of whether the State may constitutionally criminalize possession of a small amount of narcotics when clearly intended for personal use. Defendants questioned the constitutionality of such prosecution as inconsistent with the first sentence of Article 19 of the Argentine Constitution of 1860 ... The Argentine Supreme Court first heard the issue in "Colavini", 300 Fallos 254, 267 (1978), during a military government, and held in favor of prosecution.
In 1986, two years after a Supreme Court was named by a democratically elected, civilian government, the Supreme Court overruled itselft, holding that possession of a small amount of a drug for personal use was constitutionally protected ... However in 1990, only a few months after having its membership increased from five to nine by President Menem, the Supreme Court overruled itself once again and returned to the position that no constitutional protection applied. What is particularly striking, however, is the way the Court phrases its change, stating "this Court, in its present composition, decides ..." 
En otras palabras: la Corte en nuestro país no respeta ... ¡sus propios precedentes! Sus integrantes intuyen que no formarán parte del alto tribunal cuando cambie el poder político de turno. No puede haber propiedad estable en estas condiciones: no puede crecer la oferta de recursos prestables en el mercado de crédito.
 Sanne Taekama (ed). Understanding Dutch Law. La Haya: Boom, 2004.
 Agradezco a Nicolás Patrici por mandarme el texto de este largo ensayo.