Conceptual model of loss with its elimination pattern in economics from the perspective of Fiqh of Imamiyya

Decisions about how to invest, produce and consume individuals, households, businesses and the government also affect other individuals who are not directly involved in the transaction, so one of the main topics in economics is how to compensate for this. Injuries and consequences. This article first deals with the issue of harm in jurisprudential literature and extracts the conceptual model of harm in jurisprudence, explains the problem of external consequences and then with reference to the response of Imami jurists in different categories and sometimes opposite in solving the problem of external effects to provide a model. Jurisprudence as an autonomous opinion in solving this problem.

The research method in this article is descriptive-analytical and the method of data collection is library and has been done by referring to documents, books and articles.

 In all stages of writing the present study, while respecting the originality of the texts, honesty and trustworthiness have been observed.

This article extracts the conceptual model of losses from Imami jurisprudence and determines the position of negative external effects as one of the types of losses, presents a jurisprudential model of eliminating external effects and finally compares the model with conventional economic patterns of Pygmy. And Kozi in two parts of troubleshooting the conventional pattern and the distinguishing feature of conventional models expresses the distinguishing features of this pattern.

Since the custom considers the side effects as harm and damage, so the "harmless rule" can be used as an important jurisprudential rule in the discussion of external effects and considers it necessary to compensate for the loss or its disappearance. A jurisprudential model for eliminating external effects, knowledge of the conceptual model of harm in jurisprudence is very important because in addition to recognizing the types of harm, the reporting of the conflict of side effects in jurisprudence is easy.