Theorem is not the coase theorem one of this select

This preview shows page 37 - 40 out of 58 pages.

theorem is not the Coase theorem. …One of this select group is Ronald Coase himself, so I suspect we blessed few are right. …The “theorem” is supposed to be that it doesn’t matter where you place the liability for, say, smoke pollution, because in a world of zero transaction costs the right to pollute will end up in the hands that value it the most. If breathers value it most they will buy it. If steelmakers value it most they will keep it… …Coase’s actual point… was to note what happens in the many important cases in which transaction costs cannot be neglected. If the situation does have high transaction costs, then it does matter where the liability for pollution is placed. In consequence, as Coase stressed throughout his career, the economist’s preference for a simple, blackboard solution, taxing the party that “causes” the pollution, is no longer defensible…” Aside: did Ronald Coase believe the Coase Theorem?
38 The Russian Revolution had taken place only fourteen years earlier. We knew then very little about how planning would actually be carried out in a communist system. Lenin had said that the economic system in Russia would be run as one big factory. However, many economists in the West maintained that this was an impossibility. And yet there were factories in the West and some of them were extremely large. How did one reconcile the views expressed by economists on the role of htep ricing system and the impossibility of successful central economic planning with the existence of management and of these apparently planned societies, firms, operating within our own economy? I found the answer by the summer of 1932. It was to realize that there were costs of using the pricing mechanism. What the prices are has to be discovered. There are negotiations to be undertaken, contracts have to be written up, inspections have to be made, arrangements have to be made to settle disputes, and so on. These costs have come to be known as transaction costs. Their existence implies that methods of co-ordination, alternative to the market, which are themselves costly and in various ways imperfect, may nonetheless be preferable to relying on the pricing mechanism, the only method of co-ordination normally analysed by economists. It was the avoidance of the costs of carrying out transactions through the market that could explain the existence of them firm in which the allocation of factors came about as a result of administrative decisions… Coase himself (in his Nobel prize acceptance speech):
39 “Coase Theorem” still signifies idea that efficiency will be reached through bargaining as long as nothing is standing in the way… …so if you want an economist to believe the “details matter,” you start by explaining what’s the transaction cost, or market failure, that prevents the Coase Theorem from holding “In the absence of transaction costs, if property rights are well-defined and tradable, voluntary negotiations will lead to efficiency” can be read as positive or negative result:

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture