In defence of the institutional revolution
I defend my thesis laid out in The Institutional Revolution against the comments made by McCloskey, Espin and Mokyr, and Langlois, who all believe that the weight of the great institutional transition is too great for my theory of measurement, and who all quibble with some aspects of my historical analysis. I argue that some of the comments fail to fully appreciate the Coasean approach, and that most of the historical comments miss the mark. I begin with a short discussion of Coase, and then turn to each author in turn. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Douglas W. Allen, 2006. "Theoretical Difficulties With Transaction Cost Measurement," Division of Labor & Transaction Costs (DLTC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 2(01), pages 1-14.
- Richard N. Langlois, 2013.
"The Institutional Revolution: A Review Essay,"
2013-11, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
- Deirdre McCloskey, 2013. "A neo-institutionalism of measurement, without measurement: A comment on Douglas Allen’s The Institutional Revolution," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 363-373, December.
- Coase, R H, 1992.
"The Institutional Structure of Production,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 82(4), pages 713-19, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:revaec:v:26:y:2013:i:4:p:397-412. 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: (Guenther Eichhorn)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.