The Coase's Theorem Revisiting with Positive Transaction Costs; An Approach to Investigating the Role of Government in Facilitating the Market Exchange

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran j.abdi02@umail.umz.ac.ir

2 Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran

3 Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The Coase theorem is significantly prominent in responding to the externality problem, which has been criticized and defended through history. This study addresses zero transaction costs, one of the most significant criticisms of the Coase theorem. Acceptance of zero transaction costs has two misleading consequences. First, that market exchange is not possible once the transaction costs are positive. Second, the government's role is relegated to determining property rights. According to our modified version of the Coase Theorem with positive transaction costs, markets are exchanged when the expected return exceeds the expected costs. Technological progress and institutional innovation are two ways that government can influence market agreements, but their effect on pollution emissions and efficiency is different. Pollution is reduced if the polluter owns property rights, but efficacy cannot be judged. When the pollutant has the property rights, changes in pollution emissions and efficiency depend on the share of reduction costs and transaction costs resulting from technological progress and improvement of institutional quality. In addition, a criterion to determine property rights could be proposed. If all economic entities have the same share of technological progress and improvement of institutional quality, by granting property rights to polluters, efficiency always increases and pollution emissions decrease.
JEL Classification:
H00, D62, C60

Keywords

References

  1. رنانی، محسن (۱۳۷۶). بازار یا نابازار. تهران: انتشارات سازمان مدیریت و برنامه‌ریزی، چاپ اول.
  2. شکوهی، محمدرضا (1393). هزینه‌های مبادلاتی سازماندهی در شرکت ملی نفت ایران.پژوهشنامه اقتصاد انرژی ایران، ۴ (۱۳)، ۱۶۸- ۱۱۷.‎
  3. عاقلی، لطفعلی و همکاران (1396). تأثیر هزینه مبادله بر توسعه مالی در کشورهای منتخب اوپک.پژوهش‌های رشد و توسعه پایدار (پژوهش‌های اقتصادی)، ۱۷(۱)، ۱۲۰- ۹۵.
  4. دادگر، یدا... (1386). نقش قضیه Coase و هزینه مبادله در تحولات جدید اقتصادی. دو فصلنامۀ علمی مطالعات و سیاست‌های اقتصادی، 11، 114-89.‎
  5. Agheli L, Sahabi, B., & Solhkhah, N. (2017). The Impact of Transaction Cost on Financial Development in Selected OPEC Members. The Economic Research, 17 (1), 95-120 (In Persian).
  6. Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization. American Economic Review, 62(5), 777-795.
  7. Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. (1973). The Property Rights Paradigm. Journal of Economic History, 33(1), 16-27.
  8. Buchanan, J. M. (1986). Liberty, Market and State: Political Economy in the 1980s. Wheatsheaf
  9. Calabresi, G. (1968). Transaction Costs, Resource Allocation and Liability Rules-A Comment. The Journal of Law and Economics, 11(1), 67-73.
  10. Calabresi, G. (1991). The Pointlessness of Pareto: Carrying Coase Further. Yale Law Journal, 100, 1211.
  11. Coase, R. H. (1960). The Problem of Social Cost. In Classic Papers in Natural Resource Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 87-137
  12. Demsetz, H. (1967). Towards a Theory of Property Rights. American Economic Review, 57(2), 347–359.
  13. Dixit, A., & Olson, M. (2000). Does Coluntary Participation Undermine the Coase Theorem?. Journal of Public Economics, 76(3), 309-335.
  14. Field, B. C., & Field, M. K. (2017). Environmental Economics: an Introduction. McGraw‐Hill, New York, 458.
  15. Halpin, A. (2007). Disproving the Coase Theorem?. Economics & Philosophy, 23(3), 321-341.
  16. Ketokivi, M., & Mahoney, J. T. (2017). Transaction Cost Economics as a Theory of the Firm, Management, and Governance. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management.
  17. Khan, M. H. (2009). Governance Capabilities and the Property Rights Transition in Developing Countries. London: Department of Economics, SOAS University of London.
  18. Kuechle, G., & Rios, D. (2012). The Coase Theorem Reconsidered: The Role of Alternative Activities. International Review of Law and Economics, 32(1), 129-134.‏
  19. Lapan, H. E., & Sandler, T. (1988). To bargain or not to Bargain: That is the Question. The American Economic Review, 78(2), 16-21.
  20. Libecap, G. D. (2007). The Assignment of Property Rights on the Western Frontier: Lessons for Contemporary Environmental and Resource policy. The Journal of Economic History, 67(2), 257-291.
  21. Marchand, James R. and Keith P. Russell. 1973. Externalities, liability, Separability, and Resource Allocation. American Economic Review, 63 (4), 611-620.
  22. McCann, L. (2004). Induced Institutional Innovation and Transaction Costs: The Case of the Australian National Native Title Tribunal. Review of Social Economy, 62(1), 67-82.‏‏
  23. McCann, L. (2013). Transaction Costs and Environmental Policy Design. Ecological Economics, 88, 253-262.
  24. McKitrick, R. (1999). A Derivation of the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 37(3), 306-314.
  25. Medema, S. G. (2020). The Coase Theorem at Sixty. Journal of Economic Literature, 58(4), 1045-1128.
  26. Medema, S. G., & Samuels, W. J. (2000). The Economic Role of Government as, in Part, a Matter of Selective Perception, Sentiment and valuation: The Cases of Pigovian and Paretian Welfare economics. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 59(1), 87-108.
  27. Medema, S. G., & Zerbe Jr, R. O. (2000). 0730 The Coase Theorem. Encyclopedia of Law and.
  28. Mohammadm, R. S. (2014). Governance Transactions Costs in National Iranian Oil Company. Iranian Energy Economics Research, 4(3), 117-168 (In Persian).
  29. North, D. C., & North, D. C. (1992). Transaction Costs, Institutions, and Economic Performance, San Francisco, CA: ICS Press,13-15
  30. Renani M. (1997). Market or Nonmarket? A Study of Market Failure in Iranian Economy. The Management and Planning Organization (In Persian).
  31. Robson, A. (2014). Transaction Costs Can Encourage Coasean Bargaining. Public Choice, 160(3), 539-549.
  32. Stigler, G. J. (1972). The Law and Economics of Public Policy: A Plea to the Scholars. The Journal of Legal Studies, 1(1), 1-12.
  33. Stigler, G. J. (1989). Two Notes on the Coase Theorem. The Yale law journal, 99(3), 631-633.
  34. Usher, D. (1998). The Coase Theorem is Tautological, Incoherent or Wrong. Economics Letters, 61(1), 3-11.
Journal of Economic Research (Tahghighat- E- Eghtesadi)
Volume 57, Issue 3 - Serial Number 140
October 2022
Pages 505-531

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 14 November 2022
  • Revise Date: 28 January 2023
  • Accept Date: 21 January 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics