IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fup/wpaper/0048.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Negotiating Transaction Cost Economics: Oliver Williamson and his audiences

Author

Listed:
  • Huáscar Fialho Pessali

    (Department of Economics, Universidade Federal do Paraná)

  • Ramón G. Fernández

    (Fundação Getúlio Vargas - São Paulo)

Abstract

The article studies the interaction between Oliver Williamson and his audiences in the construction of Transaction Cost Economics (TCE). His attentiveness to the feedback from different groups has played a major role in the success of TCE. First we discuss briefly the relevance of rhetoric to the study of economics. Rhetoric stresses that economists talk not to a void, but to peers and lay people with their habits, interests, institutional conditionings and values. Using the toolbox of rhetoric we identify Williamson’s intended audiences. Next we discuss his lists of claimed antecedents and the changes made therein. We explore how those (changing) connections could possibly have incited different audiences. In what follows, we use citation data to delineate his actual readers. This helps compare intended and actual audiences as we close with a discussion of Williamson’s ability to modify his intended reader and widen the audience of TCE in the social sciences.

Suggested Citation

  • Huáscar Fialho Pessali & Ramón G. Fernández, 2006. "Negotiating Transaction Cost Economics: Oliver Williamson and his audiences," Working Papers 0048, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:fup:wpaper:0048
    Note: Creation Date corresponds to the year in which the paper was published on the Department of Economics website. The paper may have been written a small number of months before its publication date.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.economiaetecnologia.ufpr.br/textos_discussao/texto_para_discussao_ano_2006_texto_16.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McCloskey, Donald N, 1983. "The Rhetoric of Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 481-517, June.
    2. Kenneth E. Boulding, 1971. "After Samuelson, Who Needs Adam Smith?," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 225-237, Fall.
    3. Robert Leonard, 1997. "Value, sign, and social structure: the 'game' metaphor and modern social science," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(2), pages 299-326.
    4. Geoffrey M. Hodgson (ed.), 2002. "A Modern Reader in Institutional and Evolutionary Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2182.
    5. Roger E. Backhouse & John Creedy (ed.), 1999. "From Classical Economics to the Theory of the Firm," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1824.
    6. Quandt, Richard E, 1976. "Some Quantitative Aspects of the Economics Journal Literature," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 84(4), pages 741-755, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert Garnett & John Reardon, 2011. "Big Think: A Model for Critical Inquiry in Economics Courses," Working Papers 201102, Texas Christian University, Department of Economics.
    2. Randall Holcombe, 2011. "Pluralism and heterodoxy in economic methodology," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 24(1), pages 57-65, March.
    3. Sheila C. Dow, 2012. "Variety of Methodological Approach in Economics," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Foundations for New Economic Thinking, chapter 13, pages 210-230, Palgrave Macmillan.
    4. Mark Blaug, 2001. "No History of Ideas, Please, We're Economists," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 145-164, Winter.
    5. Robert F. Garnett & Jack Reardon, 2011. "Pluralism in Economics Education," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 23, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Wilfred Dolfsma, 2001. "Economists as subjects: Toward a psychology of economists," Forum for Social Economics, Springer;The Association for Social Economics, vol. 30(2), pages 77-88, March.
    7. Petrick, Martin, 2004. "Can Econometric Analysis Make (Agricultural) Economics A Hard Science? Critical Remarks And Implications For Economic Methodology," IAMO Discussion Papers 14911, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    8. J. Kornai., 2002. "The System Paradigm," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, vol. 4.
    9. Suzuki, Tomo, 2003. "The accounting figuration of business statistics as a foundation for the spread of economic ideas," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 65-95, January.
    10. Graupe, Silja & Steffestun, Theresa, 2018. ""The market deals out profit and losses": Wie ökonomische Standardlehrbücher das unreflektierte Denken in Metaphern fördern," Working Paper Series Ök-38, Cusanus Hochschule für Gesellschaftsgestaltung, Institut für Ökonomie.
    11. Kurt Dopfer, 2013. "Economics with a Phylogenetic Signature," Papers on Economics and Evolution 2013-06, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    12. Medoff, Marshall H., 2003. "Collaboration and the quality of economics research," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(5), pages 597-608, October.
    13. Maurice Doyon & Stéphane Bergeron & Lota Tamini, 2017. "Policy relevance of applied economist: Examining sensitivity and inferences," CIRANO Working Papers 2017s-12, CIRANO.
    14. Miguel A. Duran, 2007. "Mathematical Needs and Economic Interpretations," Contributions to Political Economy, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 26(1), pages 1-16.
    15. Frey Bruno S. & Eichenberger Reiner, 2000. "The Ranking Of Economists And Management Scientists In Europe A Quantitative Analysis," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 10(4), pages 1-8, December.
    16. Hendrik P. van Dalen, 2003. "Pluralism in Economics: A Public Good or a Public Bad?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 03-034/1, Tinbergen Institute, revised 18 May 2004.
    17. Hendrik P. van Dalen, 2019. "Values of Economists Matter in the Art and Science of Economics," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 472-499, August.
    18. Luzar, E. Jane, 1990. "Environmental Hazards Of Farming: Thinking About The Management Challenge: Discussion," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(1), pages 1-3, July.
    19. repec:lan:wpaper:470 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. De Geest, Gerrit, 1996. "The debate on the scientific status of law & economics," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(3-5), pages 999-1006, April.
    21. John H. Cochrane, 2017. "Macro-Finance," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 21(3), pages 945-985.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fup:wpaper:0048. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Luciano Nakabashi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deufpbr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.