 Second, policy analysis and doctrinal analysis generally adopt a welfarist stance towards evaluation of legal rules, while political economy has evolved from a more contractarian tradition. Policy analysts, when evaluating legal rules, ask whether that legal rule induces behavior that satisfies some welfarist criterion, usually either Pareto efficiency or (constrained) social welfare  maximization.[5]  Political economy, however, has to a large extent emerged from an economic tradition, exemplified by James  Buchanan,[6]  that rejects the maximization of social welfare as a criterion and seeks to evaluate political institutions on grounds of (actual or hypothetical) consent. The political economist often asks not whether the rule induces Pareto efficiency but whether the parties have acted voluntarily, consented to the rule, or would have (rationally) consented to the rule.