The tools of analytical positivism and economic analysis are applied to the phenomenon of legal pluralism. An analytical framework is developed to ascertain when legal pluralism is problematic in the control of wrongdoing. It is demonstrated that there are three specific cases: rivalrous compliance, sanctions for wrong behaviour that are deemed to be wrongs themselves, and the uncoordinated sanctioning of common wrongs. Then there is a discussion of the consequences and some approaches that can be used to ameliorate each case that has been identified. It is hoped that this framework will be used to guide future practical and theoretical discussions on legal pluralism and its potential problems.