This paper shows how three new institutionalist theories try, but ultimately fail to support the firm-as-individual thesis. First, Karl Marx/O. Hart's idea of property rights and R. H. Coase/O. E. Williamson's notion of transaction costs are insufficient to substantiate the market/firm dichotomy. Second, F. A. Hayek's constructionist view presents the firm, as opposed to the market, as a designed order--no different from artifacts such as tables and cars. Third, V. J. Vanberg's constitutionalist theory also fails to support the firm-as-individual thesis. The paper suggests that the 'consented goal' notion is a fruitful ground upon which to build the firm-as-individual thesis. Copyright 1997 by Oxford University Press.
Download Info
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page
whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be
available.
Volume (Year): 21 (1997) Issue (Month): 4 (July) Pages: 519-44 Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML,
plain text,
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote),
ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:21:y:1997:i:4:p:519-44
Contact details of provider: Postal: Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK Fax: 01865 267 985 Email: Web page: http://www.cje.oupjournals.org/
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).
Related research
Keywords:
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)