661
Views
3
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Experimenting with the Coase theorem

& ORCID Icon
Pages 1-17 | Received 02 Aug 2018, Accepted 13 Apr 2019, Published online: 23 Apr 2019

References

  • Adamowicz, W., Bhardwaj, V., & Macnab, B. (1993). Experiments on the difference between willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Land Economics, 69, 416–427. doi: 10.2307/3146458
  • Allen, D. (2015). The Coase theorem: Coherent, logical, and not disproved. Journal of Institutional Economics, 11, 379–390. doi: 10.1017/S1744137414000083
  • Arrow, K. (1979). The property rights doctrine & demand revelation under incomplete information. In The Economics of Information, Collected Paper of K. J. Arrow (1984). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Barzel, Y. (1985). Transaction costs: Are they just costs? Journal of Institutional & Theoretical Economics, 141, 4–16.
  • Bertrand, E. (2010). The three roles of the ‘Coase theorem’ in Coase’s works. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 17, 975–1000. doi: 10.1080/09672560903552553
  • Bertrand, E. (2011). What do cattle and bees tell us about the Coase theorem? European Journal of Law and Economics, 31, 39–62. doi: 10.1007/s10657-010-9195-6
  • Buchanan, J., & Stubblebine, W. (1962). Externality. Economica, 29, 371–384. doi: 10.2307/2551386
  • Buchanan, J., & Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent. Logical foundations of constitutional democracy. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund Inc.
  • Calabresi, G. (1968). Transaction costs, resource allocation & liability rules—A comment. The Journal of Law and Economics, 11, 67–73. doi: 10.1086/466644
  • Calabresi, G. (1991). The pointlessness of Pareto: Carrying Coase further. Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2014. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/2014
  • Canterbery, R., & Marvasti, A. (1992). The Coase theorem as a negative externality. Journal of Economic Issues, 26, 1179–1189. doi: 10.1080/00213624.1992.11505366
  • Coase, R. (1960). The problem of social cost. The Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1–44. doi: 10.1086/466560
  • Coase, R. (1981). The Coase theorem and the empty core: A comment. The Journal of Law and Economics, 24, 183–187. doi: 10.1086/466980
  • Coase, R. (1988). The firm, the market, & the law. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
  • Coleman, J. (2002). Markets, morals & the law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Cooter, R. (1982). The cost of Coase. The Journal of Legal Studies, 11, 1–33. doi: 10.1086/467690
  • Coursey, D., Hoffman, E., & Spitzer, M. (1987). Fear and loathing in the coase theorem: Experimental tests involving physical discomfort. The Journal of Legal Studies, 16, 217–248. doi: 10.1086/467829
  • Cubitt, R., Navarro-Martinez, D., & Starmer, C. (2015). On preference imprecision. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 50, 1–34. doi: 10.1007/s11166-015-9207-6
  • Cyert, R., & Degroot, M. (1975). Adaptive utility. In M. Allais & O. Gagen (Eds.), Expected utility hypotheses & the Allais Paradox (pp. 223–241). Dordrecht: Springer - Science + Business Media. BV.
  • Dahlman, C. (1979). The problem of externality. The Journal of Law and Economics, 22, 141–162. doi: 10.1086/466936
  • Davis, O., & Whinston, A. (1965). Some notes on equating private and social cost. Southern Economic Journal, 32, 113–126. doi: 10.2307/1055139
  • Demsetz, H. (1964). The exchange and enforcement of property rights. The Journal of Law and Economics, 7, 11–26. doi: 10.1086/466596
  • Demsetz, H. (2011). The problem of social cost: What problem? A critique of the reasoning of A.C. Pigou and R.H. Coase Review of Law & Economics, 7, 1–13. doi: 10.2202/1555-5879.1502
  • Dixit, A., & Olson, M. (2000). Does voluntary participation undermine the Coase Theorem? Journal of Public Economics, 76, 309–335. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2727(99)00089-4
  • Farber, D. (1997). Parody lost/pragmatism regained: The ironic history of the Coase theorem. Virginia Law Review, 83, 397–428. doi: 10.2307/1073781
  • Farell, J. (1987). Information and the Coase theorem. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1, 113–129. doi: 10.1257/jep.1.2.113
  • Foss, K., & Foss, N. (2005). Resources & transaction costs: How property rights economics furthers the resource based views. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 541–553. doi: 10.1002/smj.465
  • Hahnel, R., & Sheeran, K. (2009). Misinterpreting the Coase theorem. Journal of Economic Issues, 43, 215–238. doi: 10.2753/JEI0021-3624430110
  • Halpin, A. (2007). Disproving the Coase theorem? Economics and Philosophy, 23, 321–341. doi: 10.1017/S0266267107001514
  • Hanemann, M. (1991). Willingness to pay & willingness to accept: How much can they differ? American Economic Review, 81, 635–646.
  • Harrison, G., Hoffman, E., Rutstrom, E., & Spitzer, M. (1987). Coasian solutions to the externality problem in experimental markets. The Economic Journal, 97, 388–402. doi: 10.2307/2232885
  • Harrison, G., & McKee, M. (1985). Experimental evaluation of the Coase theorem. The Journal of Law and Economics, 28, 653–670. doi: 10.1086/467104
  • Heiner, R. (1983). The origin of predictable behavior. The American Economic Review, 73, 50–595.
  • Hoffman, E., & Spitzer, M. (1980). WTP vs WTA: Legal & economic implications. Washington University Law Review Quarterly, 71, 59–114.
  • Hoffman, E., & Spitzer, M. (1982). The Coase theorem: Some experimental tests. The Journal of Law and Economics, 25, 73–98. doi: 10.1086/467008
  • Hoffman, E., & Spitzer, M. (1985). Entitlements, rights, and fairness: An experimental examination of subjects’ concepts of distributive justice. The Journal of Legal Studies, 14, 259–297. doi: 10.1086/467773
  • Hoffman, E., & Spitzer, M. (1986). Experimental tests of the Coase theorem with large bargaining groups. The Journal of Legal Studies, 15, 149–171. doi: 10.1086/467807
  • Hoffman, E., & Spitzer, M. (1993). Willingness to pay vs. Willingness to accept: Legal & economics implications. Washington University Law Review, 71, 59–114.
  • Horowitz, J., & McConnell, K. (2002). A review of WTA/WTP studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44, 426–447. doi: 10.1006/jeem.2001.1215
  • Hovenkamp, H. (1990). Marginal utility & the Coase theorem. Cornell Law Review, 75, 783–810.
  • Illing, G. (1992). Private information as transaction costs: The Coase theorem revisited. Journal of Institutional & Theoretical Economics, 148, 558–576.
  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., & Thaler, R. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1325–1348. doi: 10.1086/261737
  • Kelman, M. (1979). Consumption theory, production theory, and ideology in the Coase theorem. Southern California Law Review, 52, 669–698.
  • Klass, G., & Zeiler, K. (2013). Against endowment theory: Experimental economics & legal scholarship. UCLA Law Review, 61, 1–64.
  • Korobkin, R. (2003). The endowment effect & legal analysis. Northwestern University Law Review, 97, 1277–1293.
  • Korobkin, R. (2014). Wrestling with the endowment effect, or how to do law & economics without the Coase theorem. In E. Zamir & D. Teichman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of behavioral economics & the law (pp. 1–37). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Laitos, J. (2017). Why environmental policies fail. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Loewenstein, G., & Issacharoff, S. (1994). Source dependence in the valuation of objects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 157–168. doi: 10.1002/bdm.3960070302
  • McKlevey, D., & Page, T. (2000). An experimental study of the effect of private information in the Coase theorem. Experimental Economics, 3, 187–213. doi: 10.1023/A:1011481916758
  • Medema, S. (1996). Of pangloss, pigouvians and pragmatism: Ronald Coase and social cost analysis. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 18, 96–114. doi: 10.1017/S1053837200002972
  • Medema, S. (1997). The trial of homo economicus: What law and economics tells us about the development of economic imperialism. History of Political Economy, 29, 122–142. doi: 10.1215/00182702-1997-suppl_1016
  • Medema, S. (1999). Symposium on the Coase theorem: Legal fiction: The place of the Coase theorem in law and economics. Economics and Philosophy, 15, 209–233. doi: 10.1017/S0266267100003989
  • Medema, S. (2015). “A magnificent business prospect … ” the Coase theorem, the extortion problem, and the creation of Coase theorem worlds. Journal of Institutional Economics, 11, 353–378. doi: 10.1017/S174413741400023X
  • Medema, S. (2017). The Coase theorem at sixty. Working Paper.
  • Medema, S., & Zerbe, R. (2000). The Coase theorem. In B. Bouckaert & G. De Geest (Eds.), Encyclopedia of law & economics (pp. 836–892). Cheltenham & Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Plott, C., & Smith, V. (1978). An experimental examination of two exchange institutions. The Review of Economic Studies, 45, 133–153. doi: 10.2307/2297090
  • Plott, C., & Zeiler, C. (2005). The Willingness to Pay–Willingness to accept gap, the “endowment effect,” subject Misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. American Economic Review, 95, 530–545. doi: 10.1257/0002828054201387
  • Plott, C., & Zeiler, C. (2007). Exchange asymmetries incorrectly interpreted as evidence of endowment effect theory and prospect theory? American Economic Review, 97, 1449–1466. doi: 10.1257/aer.97.4.1449
  • Posner, R. (2014). Economic analysis of law. New York, NY: Wolter Kluwer.
  • Pratten, S. (1997). The nature of transaction cost economics. Journal of Economic Issues, 31, 781–804. doi: 10.1080/00213624.1997.11505965
  • Prudencio, C. (1982). The voluntary approach to externality problems: An experimental test. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 9, 213–228. doi: 10.1016/0095-0696(82)90031-6
  • Rachlinski, J., & Jourdain, F. (1998). Remedies & the psychology of ownership. Vanderbilt Law Review, 51, 1541–1582.
  • Rasmusen, E. (2007). Games & information. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Regan, D. (1972). The problem of social cost revisited. The Journal of Law and Economics, 15, 427–437. doi: 10.1086/466745
  • Rhoads, T., & Shogren, J. (1999). On Coasean bargaining with transaction costs. Applied Economics Letters, 6, 779–783. doi: 10.1080/135048599352150
  • Robson, A. (2014). Transaction costs can encourage Coasean bargaining. Public Choice, 160, 539–549. doi: 10.1007/s11127-013-0117-3
  • Roth, A. (1985). Game theoretic models of bargaining. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
  • Roth, A. (1995). Introduction to experimental economics. In J. Kagel & A. Roth (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Roth, A., & Malouf, M. (1979). Game-theoretic models and the role of information in bargaining. Psychological Review, 86, 574–594. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.86.6.574
  • Samuels, W. (1974). The Coase theorem and the study of law and economics. Natural Resources Journal, 14, 1–33.
  • Samuelson, W. (1985). Comments on the Coase theorem. In A. Roth (Ed.), Game-theoretic models of bargaining (pp. 321–339). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sayman, S., & Onculer, A. (2005). Effects of study design characteristics on the WTA–WTP disparity: A meta analytical framework. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 289–312. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2004.07.002
  • Schlag, P. (1989). The problem of transaction costs. Southern California Law Review, 62, 1661–1700.
  • Schwab, S. (1988). A Coasean experiment on contract presumptions. The Journal of Legal Studies, 17, 237–268. doi: 10.1086/468129
  • Schweizer, U. (1988). Externalities & the Coase theorem: Hypothesis or result? Journal of Institutional & Theoretical Economics, 144, 244–266.
  • Shogren, J., Seung, S., Hayes, D., & Kliebenstein, J. (1994). Resolving differences in willingness to pay & willingness to accept. American Economic Review, 84, 255–270.
  • Siegel, S., & Fouraker, L. (1960). Bargaining and group decision making: Experiments in bilateral monopoly. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Simon, H. (1954). Models of man: Social & rational. New York, NY: Wiley.
  • Smith, V. (1976). Experimental economics: Induced value theory. American Economic Review Papers & Proceedings, 66, 274–279.
  • Starrett, D. (2003). Property rights, public goods and the environment. In K.-G. Maler & J. R. Vincent (Eds.), Handbook of environmental economics (pp. 97–125). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Stigler, G. (1966). The theory of price (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
  • Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1, 39–60. doi: 10.1016/0167-2681(80)90051-7
  • Thaler, R. (1985). Mental Accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4, 199–214. doi: 10.1287/mksc.4.3.199
  • Turvey, R. (1963). On divergences between social cost and private cost. Economica, 30, 309–313. doi: 10.2307/2601550
  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039–1061. doi: 10.2307/2937956
  • Usher, D. (1998). The Coase theorem is tautological, incoherent or wrong. Economics Letters, 61, 3–11. doi: 10.1016/S0165-1765(98)00101-3
  • Ventura, A., Cafiero, C., & Montibeller, M. (2016). Pareto efficiency, the Coase theorem, and externalities: A critical view. Journal of Economic Issues, L, 872–895. doi: 10.1080/00213624.2016.1213595
  • Weaver, R., & Frederick, S. (2012). A reference price theory of the endowment effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 696–707. doi: 10.1509/jmr.09.0103
  • Wilkinson, N., & Klaes, M. (2012). Introduction to behavioral economics. Houndmills: Palgrave McMillan.
  • Williamson, O. (1974). The economics of antitrust: Transaction cost considerations. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 122, 1439–1496. doi: 10.2307/3311505
  • Williamson, O. (1986). Economic organization: Firms, markets, and policy control. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.
  • Zamir, E. (2015). Law, psychology, & morality. The role of loss aversion. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Zeiler, K. (2017). What explains observed reluctance to trade? A comprehensive literature review. In J. Teitelbaum & K. Zeiler (Eds.), Research handbook on behavioral law and economics (pp. 347–430). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • Zerbe, R. (1976). The problem of social cost: Fifteen years later. In S. Lin (Ed.), Theory & measurement of economic externalities (pp. 29–40). New York, NY: Academic Press.
  • Zhao, J., & Kling, C. (2001). A new explanation for the WTP/WTA disparity. Economics Letters, 73, 293–300. doi: 10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00511-0

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.