Is the Firm an Individual?

Elias Khalil ()

Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1997, vol. 21, issue 4, 519-44

Abstract: 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.

Date: 1997
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (11)

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

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:oup:cambje:v:21:y:1997:i:4:p:519-44

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://academic.oup.com/journals

Access Statistics for this article

Cambridge Journal of Economics is currently edited by Jacqui Lagrue

More articles in Cambridge Journal of Economics from Cambridge Political Economy Society Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().