黑石大道发生了什么?破除科斯定理神话

Steven G. Medema
{"title":"黑石大道发生了什么?破除科斯定理神话","authors":"Steven G. Medema","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3886896","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present paper revisits the path by which Coase came to set down the result now generally known as the Coase theorem in his 1960 article. I draw on both the published record and archival resources in an effort to clear away some of the mist and, as it will emerge, dispel some of the mythology. As good as the traditional story is—thanks in no small part to Stigler’s hyperbole—the reality is far more interesting, both for what it tells us about Coase’s result and for our understanding of the messy process behind how it came to be. For as we shall see, Coase set out at least three versions of his result, two of them assuredly incorrect, in 1959–60 and had at best a faint sense for the implications of transaction costs for his conclusion—something which he was only put on to by others to whom he showed the original draft of his 1959 article. And as for that fateful evening during which he \"converted\" the Chicagoans to his point of view, we shall see both that the extent of the conversion necessary was far less than the traditional story suggests and that it is not at all clear what it was that the Chicagoans believed at the end of the evening, Coase’s 1960 argument notwithstanding.","PeriodicalId":129815,"journal":{"name":"Microeconomics: Welfare Economics & Collective Decision-Making eJournal","volume":"168 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Happened on Blackstone Avenue? Exorcising Coase Theorem Mythology\",\"authors\":\"Steven G. Medema\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3886896\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The present paper revisits the path by which Coase came to set down the result now generally known as the Coase theorem in his 1960 article. I draw on both the published record and archival resources in an effort to clear away some of the mist and, as it will emerge, dispel some of the mythology. As good as the traditional story is—thanks in no small part to Stigler’s hyperbole—the reality is far more interesting, both for what it tells us about Coase’s result and for our understanding of the messy process behind how it came to be. For as we shall see, Coase set out at least three versions of his result, two of them assuredly incorrect, in 1959–60 and had at best a faint sense for the implications of transaction costs for his conclusion—something which he was only put on to by others to whom he showed the original draft of his 1959 article. And as for that fateful evening during which he \\\"converted\\\" the Chicagoans to his point of view, we shall see both that the extent of the conversion necessary was far less than the traditional story suggests and that it is not at all clear what it was that the Chicagoans believed at the end of the evening, Coase’s 1960 argument notwithstanding.\",\"PeriodicalId\":129815,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Microeconomics: Welfare Economics & Collective Decision-Making eJournal\",\"volume\":\"168 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Microeconomics: Welfare Economics & Collective Decision-Making eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3886896\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Microeconomics: Welfare Economics & Collective Decision-Making eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3886896","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文回顾了科斯在1960年的文章中提出现在被称为“科斯定理”的结论的途径。我利用已发表的记录和档案资源,努力消除一些迷雾,并在它即将出现时消除一些神话。与传统的故事一样好——很大程度上要感谢斯蒂格勒的夸张——现实要有趣得多,不仅因为它告诉我们科斯的结果,也因为我们对它如何形成背后的混乱过程的理解。因为正如我们将看到的,科斯在1959 - 60年间提出了至少三个版本的结论,其中两个肯定是错误的,而且他对交易成本对他的结论的影响充其量有一点模糊的感觉——他只是把他1959年那篇文章的初稿给别人看了才知道这一点。至于那个决定命运的夜晚,他让芝加哥人“皈依”了他的观点,我们将看到,必要的皈依程度远比传统故事所暗示的要小得多,而且,尽管科斯在1960年提出了这样的观点,但我们完全不清楚芝加哥人在那个夜晚结束时信仰的是什么。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What Happened on Blackstone Avenue? Exorcising Coase Theorem Mythology
The present paper revisits the path by which Coase came to set down the result now generally known as the Coase theorem in his 1960 article. I draw on both the published record and archival resources in an effort to clear away some of the mist and, as it will emerge, dispel some of the mythology. As good as the traditional story is—thanks in no small part to Stigler’s hyperbole—the reality is far more interesting, both for what it tells us about Coase’s result and for our understanding of the messy process behind how it came to be. For as we shall see, Coase set out at least three versions of his result, two of them assuredly incorrect, in 1959–60 and had at best a faint sense for the implications of transaction costs for his conclusion—something which he was only put on to by others to whom he showed the original draft of his 1959 article. And as for that fateful evening during which he "converted" the Chicagoans to his point of view, we shall see both that the extent of the conversion necessary was far less than the traditional story suggests and that it is not at all clear what it was that the Chicagoans believed at the end of the evening, Coase’s 1960 argument notwithstanding.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Opportunity and Inequality Across Generations Auctioning Corporate Bonds: A Uniform-Price under Investment Mandates The Role of Effort Cost Perception in Outcome Bias (Mis-)Perception of Inequality: Measures, Determinants, and Consequences Dynamic Resource Allocation with Cost Externality
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1