Law and economics...
sees secure property rights as the fundamental engine of growth and prosperity
critiques: Morton Horwitz, Naomi Lamoreaux paper on whether secure property rights are necessary for growth
sees contract law as primarily about the optimal outcomes of exchange of secure property rights
critiques: Robert Steinfeld, Christopher Tomlins, Duncan Kennedy
has an underlying extreme libertarian view of society where third party (government) action distorts incentives and thus optimal performance
critiques: ANY history of government involvement in the economy such as Polanyi
Points of intersection of the above critiques:
Marxist or far-left social democrat: government plays big important roles in shaping economic growth -- and I don't mean welfare, I mean actual subsidization and coercion in the name of economic growth
The assumption that property and contract are not absolute and never will be -- they are socially defined institutions. That is, what defines what your property is, and the terms under which you exchange it (through contract) is crucially dependent on the political economic landscape: who controls the power. Through what channels.
What economics (heterodox, Marxist or otherwise) can share in terms of these intersections
David Kotz-style work on Marxism and institutions, Bowles' labor discipline model, others? I may be missing some things from development and heterodox macro (though I would argue most of it is still in the equity vs. efficiency framework, which I don't like).