One of the main contributions of Ronald H. Coase was to demonstrate how mainstream economics was based on a contradictory amalgam of costly physical inputs and free institutional resources, and to give origin to the economics of institutions: each institution is a mode of allocation and organization of economic resources that is to be investigated. In particular, none of the institutions (including the market) is a free lunch. The Coasian approach regards institutions as costly substitutes and provides a fundamental starting point for comparative institutional analysis. However, Coase neglected two issues deriving from the observation that institutions are not cost-free. First, when institutions are costly, one should not only consider their possible substitutes but also how complementary institutions affect their costs, as well as the costs of the possible institutional substitutes. Second, the economic analysis should also take into account that the transition from one institutional setup to another cannot occur in costless meta-institutions. The initial conditions may substantially affect the final institutional arrangements. Both the novelty of Coase’s approach and its limits were grossly undervalued. In particular, the costly institutions assumption requires a view of economics as a historical discipline.

Costly Institutions as Substitutes: Novelty and Limits of the Coasian Approach / Pagano, U; Vatiero, M. - In: JOURNAL OF INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS. - ISSN 1744-1374. - STAMPA. - 11:2(2015), pp. 265-281. [10.1017/S1744137414000198]

Costly Institutions as Substitutes: Novelty and Limits of the Coasian Approach

Pagano U;Vatiero M
2015-01-01

Abstract

One of the main contributions of Ronald H. Coase was to demonstrate how mainstream economics was based on a contradictory amalgam of costly physical inputs and free institutional resources, and to give origin to the economics of institutions: each institution is a mode of allocation and organization of economic resources that is to be investigated. In particular, none of the institutions (including the market) is a free lunch. The Coasian approach regards institutions as costly substitutes and provides a fundamental starting point for comparative institutional analysis. However, Coase neglected two issues deriving from the observation that institutions are not cost-free. First, when institutions are costly, one should not only consider their possible substitutes but also how complementary institutions affect their costs, as well as the costs of the possible institutional substitutes. Second, the economic analysis should also take into account that the transition from one institutional setup to another cannot occur in costless meta-institutions. The initial conditions may substantially affect the final institutional arrangements. Both the novelty of Coase’s approach and its limits were grossly undervalued. In particular, the costly institutions assumption requires a view of economics as a historical discipline.
2015
2
Pagano, U; Vatiero, M
Costly Institutions as Substitutes: Novelty and Limits of the Coasian Approach / Pagano, U; Vatiero, M. - In: JOURNAL OF INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS. - ISSN 1744-1374. - STAMPA. - 11:2(2015), pp. 265-281. [10.1017/S1744137414000198]
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Pagano-Vatiero-JOIE.pdf

Solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Versione editoriale (Publisher’s layout)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 287.8 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
287.8 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri
Costly Institutions.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: IdEP Economic Papers
Tipologia: Pre-print non referato (Non-refereed preprint)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 512.79 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
512.79 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11572/224472
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 22
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 18
social impact