Chasing Phantoms in a Hollow Defense of Coase
AbstractPatrick Gunning refuses to acknowledge the most salient arguments against the "Chicago" law and economics case for negligence made by Austrian economists. Because of this, he makes the same errors in his defense of Coase that permeate the Chicago paradigm. In particular, his defense of Coasean type analysis completely ignores Austrian cost theory, i.e., that all economically relevant costs are strictly subjective and therefore conceptually impossible to measure. He also fails to grasp the implications of disequilibrium market process theory for the use of any kind of least-cost-avoider rule in the economic analysis of the law. As a result, Gunning's defense of Coase suffers from the same "pretense of knowledge" as the analysis that he is defending. Copyright 2000 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Springer in its journal Review of Austrian Economics.
Volume (Year): 13 (2000)
Issue (Month): 2 (September)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100335
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Vipin Veetil, 2011. "Conceptions of rationality in law and economics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 199-228, April.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.