2007/11/01 by Andrew Halpin · 1 citation
Economics, Econometrics and Finance · Social Sciences · #Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems #Property Rights and Legal Doctrine #Legal and Constitutional Studies #Coase theorem #Economics #Mathematical economics #Argument (complex analysis) #Counterintuitive #Law and economics #Microeconomics #Transaction cost #Philosophy #Epistemology
paper · doi:10.1017/s0266267107001514
openalex publication_date 2007/11/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/05/21
Fascination with the Coase Theorem arises over its apparently unassailable counterintuitive conclusion that the imposition of legal liability has no effect on which of two competing uses of land prevails, and also over the general difficulty in tying down an unqualified statement of the theorem. Instead of entering the debate over what exactly the theorem holds, this article suggests that the core of Coase's reasoning is flawed and to the extent that any version of the theorem relies upon this reasoning it can be disproved. The article commences by modelling the nature of the counter-intuitive thrust to the Coase Theorem, which is used to trace the development of Coase's reasoning, and ultimately to expose the flaw it contains. The heart of the article comprises the allegation of an error made by Coase when he transferred his core argument to the context of economic rents. Ancillary observations are made on the relationship between the Coasean analysis of characteristically legal problems and the conditions of general market equilibrium, and the theoretical status of Law-and-Economics.