Post-Soviet Privatization in the Light of the Coase Theorem: Transaction Costs and Governance Costs

2003 ◽  
pp. 120-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Andreff

A Coasian theoretical perspective is assumed to be in the background of most post-Soviet economies' privatization drives. The assumption of zero transaction costs underlying the Coase theorem guarantees an efficient reallocation of property rights whatever is their initial distribution. Once this assumption is relaxed, the result predicted by the Coase theorem is less certain and clashes with the nature of the firm as it has been analyzed earlier by Coase himself. This preliminary presentation is used as a critical driver to provide a non-mainstream assessment of privatization objectives in Russia that became so obviously high in the early years of the transition process. A Coasian analysis also helps to figure out the post-privatization firm boundaries and to design in-house restructuring as well as industrial restructuring - between industrial branches. The issue of the firm boundaries is crucial in the relationship between privatization and restructuring. Finally, we come to terms with the analysis of post-privatization property rights and corporate governance and their possible (governance) costs for in-house restructuring. The last section is devoted to an evaluation of standard and non-standard methods of privatization.


2020 ◽  
pp. 51-81
Author(s):  
D. P. Frolov

The transaction cost economics has accumulated a mass of dogmatic concepts and assertions that have acquired high stability under the influence of path dependence. These include the dogma about transaction costs as frictions, the dogma about the unproductiveness of transactions as a generator of losses, “Stigler—Coase” theorem and the logic of transaction cost minimization, and also the dogma about the priority of institutions providing low-cost transactions. The listed dogmas underlie the prevailing tradition of transactional analysis the frictional paradigm — which, in turn, is the foundation of neo-institutional theory. Therefore, the community of new institutionalists implicitly blocks attempts of a serious revision of this dogmatics. The purpose of the article is to substantiate a post-institutional (alternative to the dominant neo-institutional discourse) value-oriented perspective for the development of transactional studies based on rethinking and combining forgotten theoretical alternatives. Those are Commons’s theory of transactions, Wallis—North’s theory of transaction sector, theory of transaction benefits (T. Sandler, N. Komesar, T. Eggertsson) and Zajac—Olsen’s theory of transaction value. The article provides arguments and examples in favor of broader explanatory possibilities of value-oriented transactional analysis.


2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven N. S. Cheung

AbstractThis paper first presents a historical account of the origin of the Coase Theorem. It then elaborates its significance in explaining the working of economic institutions. After expounding the concepts of transaction cost and rent dissipation, it points out an error in the Coase Theorem. Lastly, the paper propounds the Theorem of Transaction Costs Substitution as an extended and general version of the Coase Theorem.


2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bertrand Crettez

Abstract The Coase theorem states that where there are externalities and no transaction costs resource allocation is Pareto-optimal and independent of the stakeholders’ legal position. This result has been challenged many times. In the cooperative game approach to resource allocation, the refutation is made by constructing a three-person game which has an empty core under one set of liability rules—which implies that optimal allocations are coalitionally unstable–and a nonempty core under another set. In this example, however, the probability that the core is non-empty is rather high (5/6). Yet, even if coalitionally stable Pareto-optimal arrangements are likely, to establish the plain validity of the Coase theorem it must be shown that the legal neutrality statement also holds. We show that for the three-person cooperative game example mentioned above, the probability that the two assertions of the Coase theorem hold can be as low as 3/8.


2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas W. Allen ◽  
Dean Lueck

Abstract The Theory of Share Tenancy by Steven Cheung, first published as a PhD thesis 50 years ago, was an important watershed study on the economics of contracts. It contained the first formal demonstration of the Coase Theorem, linked the concepts of property rights and transaction costs, laid early foundations for the future economics of contracts, and can even lay claim to originating the idea of a risk/incentive tradeoff in contract design. This essay examines Cheung's key contributions in Share Tenancy, and considers reasons for its somewhat limited legacy outside of China.


2003 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 287-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Varouj A. Aivazian ◽  
Jeffrey L. Callen

2006 ◽  
Vol 45 (4II) ◽  
pp. 1323-1342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad Rafay Alam

In the study of law and economics, the Coase Theorem posits that an efficient allocation of resources will result when transactions costs are zero.1 These “transaction costs” may be viewed as impediments to an efficient allocation of resources and can take many forms. For example, long distances between a prospective vendor and purchaser of property and a lack of communication facilities between them would impede even the best of intentions to enter into a bargain. Similarly, the cost of mobilising labour and materials might impede a property developer from pursuing a tender for civil works. In some cases, a high rate of Stamp Duty on transactions can result in the parties reconsidering their decision to enter into such bargains. To the extent this author can claim knowledge of economics, the Coase Theorem also suggests that transaction costs and inefficiencies hamper the natural flow of bargains, result in inefficient allocation of resources and thus impact the economy. Some transaction costs are small enough to ignore whereas some, imposed, for example, by the law, are unavoidable. In such cases, a mutual understanding between the parties may see the burden of these transaction costs shared or, in others, avoided altogether. For example, the statutory requirements that all leases purporting to grant a term in excess of one year or which reserve an annual rent must be registered and stamped2 often results, in owners of residential property granting indefinitely renewable leases of 11 months and thus avoiding such requirements.


2010 ◽  
Vol 161 (4) ◽  
pp. 135-146
Author(s):  
Martin Hostettler

The contributions of the economist Ronald Coase (1959, 1960) have radically changed the analysis and rectification of environmental problems. A subtly differentiated notion of property and the recognition of the double-sided nature of environmental conflicts enabled him to develop a new economic view on environmental problems. Property rights will be exchanged – provided that transaction costs make this possible. His insights led to several new fields of research, though misunderstandings about the Coase Theorem are still prevalent today. Forest economics research has followed more strongly the Coasean way of thinking in recent years; however, the potential is not yet exhausted by a long way.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document