Chasing Phantoms in a Hollow Defense of Coase

Roy E Cordato

The Review of Austrian Economics, 2000, vol. 13, issue 2, 193-208

Abstract: 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

Date: 2000
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://journals.kluweronline.com/issn/0889-3047/contents link to full text (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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:kap:revaec:v:13:y:2000:i:2:p:193-208

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... ce/journal/11138/PS2

Access Statistics for this article

The Review of Austrian Economics is currently edited by Peter Boettke and Christopher Coyne

More articles in The Review of Austrian Economics from Springer, Society for the Development of Austrian Economics Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().