Chasing Phantoms in a Hollow Defense of Coase
Patrick 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
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 13 (2000)
Issue (Month): 2 (September)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
Web page: http://www.sdaeonline.org/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/public+finance/journal/11138/PS2|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:revaec:v:13:y:2000:i:2:p:193-208. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.