Is the Firm an Individual?
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.
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
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)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK|
Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page: http://www.cje.oupjournals.org/
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.oup.co.uk/journals|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:21:y:1997:i:4:p:519-44. 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: (Oxford University Press)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.