Williamson and Coase: Transaction Costs or Rent-Seeking in the Formation of Institutions

Gary Libecap

No 32603, NBER Working Papers from National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc

Abstract: The governance and transaction cost insights of Oliver Williamson (1975, 1985, 1996, 2010) and Ronald Coase (1937, 1992) have framed antitrust polices and firm management strategies. Transaction cost economics explain efficient governance adaptation. With a focus on private efficiency gains within firms and markets, however, neither Williamson nor Coase explore political exchange and rent-seeking. Coase (1960) sought to reform Pigouvian externality regulation based on transaction cost efficiencies. He called for assignment of property rights and bargaining, and for institutional comparisons of costs and benefits to reveal relative transaction cost and welfare advantages. His 1960 paper is among the most cited in economics, but his remedies have not been adopted as the primary approach in major US environmental policies. All US environmental and natural resource laws since 1970 are Pigouvian. Limited Coasean bargaining occurs late and around the edges of the laws. The efficiency advantages, welfare gains, and collaborative responses Coase suggested have not been achieved. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Act of 1976, enacted 16 years after Coase, used Pigouvian fishery regulation for 25 years, and upon failure, was replaced by abbreviated property rights and trade. Fishery economic values were lowered relative to what might have been possible. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 rejected previous Coasean legislation authorizing purchase of critical habitat and instead opted for uncompensated Pigouvian controls on private landowners, who held most endangered species. Landowners resisted, and only 3% of listed endangered species have recovered. There is no evidence of a weighing of comparative transaction costs between Coase or Pigou in enacting any legislation. Rent-seeking via political bargaining among interest groups, politicians, and agency officials explains many of the observed patterns in externality regulation. The analysis suggests that transaction cost economics play a lesser role in the political arena.

JEL-codes: K11 K32 N42 N5 N52 N92 Q52 Q53 Q57 Q58 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024-06
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-env, nep-his, nep-hpe, nep-law and nep-reg
Note: DAE EEE LE
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.nber.org/papers/w32603.pdf (application/pdf)
Access to the full text is generally limited to series subscribers, however if the top level domain of the client browser is in a developing country or transition economy free access is provided. More information about subscriptions and free access is available at http://www.nber.org/wwphelp.html. Free access is also available to older working papers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nbr:nberwo:32603

Ordering information: This working paper can be ordered from
http://www.nber.org/papers/w32603
The price is Paper copy available by mail.

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in NBER Working Papers from National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ().