It is so typical of economists to analyse problems
without recourse to actual empirical evidence. Many
firms use market mechanisms for internal allocation -
I'm sure Coase could have found some. Anyone who
has worked in such firms can attest that the problem is
not transactions costs. It's
I am not denying that transactions are costly. Or there are other costs
associated with different institutions of allocation, including the market. What
I am objecting to is logic of this sort.
Transactions costs imply firms
Therefore firms imply transactions costs.
How do we measure
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But maintaining control over employees is a transaction cost under the
Coasian theory and its modern elaborations. It's usually called
"monitoring
costs" or preventing "opportunism" (i.e. workers doing what makes their
lives bearable rather than what they are told to
Rod Hay wrote:
Classification is a useful prescientific exercise.
Yes. It is also a highly useful heuristic gimmick (which is perhaps part
of what you mean) and a good (essential) aid to memory, as well as
to convenient storage of information (in a computer or a card file,
what have you).
