IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v147y2024ics0264837724002886.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Credibility Thesis meeting the Coase Theorem in terms of form and function

Author

Listed:
  • Lai, Lawrence W.C.

Abstract

This paper engages two theories about the form and function of institutions, the “credibility thesis” offered by Peter Ho (2014, 2017, 2018) and the paradigmatic Coase Theorem, in two versions formulated by George J. Stigler and Steven N.S. Cheung and recognised by Ronald H. Coase (1988). The joint consideration of these two influential theories was predicated on the fact that the former, with its hallmark being “function trumps form” (Vatn 2023), is said to embrace institutional arrangements as endogenous, while the latter treats them as policy variables. This paper, interpreting the internal logic of the credibility thesis in its best possible light, explains that as a policy tool it is compatible with the contingent, comparative and case-by-case thinking of the Coase Theorem, as pointed out by Harold Demsetz (1969), although users of the former have launched an unfortunate and unsubstantiated attack on neo-institutional economics (NIE) likely based on a misinterpretation of primary sources.

Suggested Citation

  • Lai, Lawrence W.C., 2024. "The Credibility Thesis meeting the Coase Theorem in terms of form and function," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:147:y:2024:i:c:s0264837724002886
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107335
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837724002886
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107335?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vatn, Arild, 2023. "The credibility thesis – A commentary from an original institutionalist position," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    2. Dic Lo, 2020. "State-Owned Enterprises in Chinese Economic Transformation: Institutional Functionality and Credibility in Alternative Perspectives," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(3), pages 813-837, July.
    3. William A. Fischel, 1978. "A Property Rights Approach to Municipal Zoning," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 54(1), pages 64-81.
    4. Maderson, Siobhan, 2023. "Co-producing agricultural policy with beekeepers: Obstacles and opportunities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    5. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    6. Chen, Huirong, 2022. "Linking institutional function with form: Distributional dynamics, disequilibrium, and rural land shareholding in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    7. He, Shenjing & Wang, Dong & Webster, Chris & Chau, Kwong Wing, 2019. "Property rights with price tags? Pricing uncertainties in the production, transaction and consumption of China’s small property right housing," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 424-433.
    8. Lawrence Wai-Chung Lai, 2014. "Planning by contract: two dialogues," Chapters, in: David Emanuel Andersson & Stefano Moroni (ed.), Cities and Private Planning, chapter 7, pages 135-152, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Ho, Peter, 2018. "Institutional function versus form: The evolutionary credibility of land, housing and natural resources," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 642-650.
    10. Fan, Shengyue & Yang, Jinfei & Liu, Wenwen & Wang, He, 2019. "Institutional Credibility Measurement Based on Structure of Transaction Costs: A Case Study of Ongniud Banner in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 212-225.
    11. David D. Li, 1996. "A Theory of Ambiguous Property Rights in Transition Economies: The Case of the Chinese Non-State Sector," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 8, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    12. Groenewegen, John, 2022. "Institutional form (blueprints) and institutional function (process): Theoretical reflections on property rights and land," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    13. Akaateba, Millicent Awialie & Huang, Huang & Adumpo, Emile Akangoa, 2018. "Between co-production and institutional hybridity in land delivery: Insights from local planning practice in peri-urban Tamale, Ghana," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 215-226.
    14. Goyal, Yugank & Choudhury, Pranab Ranjan & Ghosh, Ranjan Kumar, 2022. "Informal land leasing in rural India persists because it is credible," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    15. Martin Paldam & Erich Gundlach, 2008. "Two Views on Institutions and Development: The Grand Transition vs the Primacy of Institutions," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 65-100, February.
    16. Wang, Weiye & Liu, Jinlong, 2022. "Lessons of government centralization and credibility: A qualitative case-study of administrative change in Jiuzhaigou Nature Reserve, China (1982–2018)," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    17. Fan, Shengyue & He, Miao & Zhang, Tianyu & Huo, Yajing & Fan, Di, 2022. "Credibility measurement as a tool for conserving nature: Chinese herders’ livelihood capitals and payment for grassland ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    18. Krul, Kees & Ho, Peter & Yang, Xiuyun, 2021. "Land titling as a conflict remedy or driver? Analyzing institutional outcomes through latent and manifest conflicts in China’s forest sector," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    19. Ghorbani, Amineh & Ho, Peter & Bravo, Giangiacomo, 2021. "Institutional form versus function in a common property context: The credibility thesis tested through an agent-based model," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    20. Veblen, Thorstein, 1908. "Fisher's Capital and Income," History of Economic Thought Articles, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, vol. 23.
    21. Gomes, Sharlene L. & Hermans, Leon M., 2018. "Institutional function and urbanization in Bangladesh: How peri-urban communities respond to changing environments," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 932-941.
    22. Lai, Yani & Zheng, Xian & Choy, Lennon H.T. & Wang, Jiayuan, 2017. "Property rights and housing prices: An empirical study of small property rights housing in Shenzhen, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 429-437.
    23. You, Heyuan & Zhang, Jinrong & Song, Yan, 2022. "Assessing conflict of farmland institutions using credibility theory: Implications for socially acceptable land use," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    24. Li, David D., 1996. "A Theory of Ambiguous Property Rights in Transition Economies: The Case of the Chinese Non-State Sector," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-19, August.
    25. Godfrey Yeung & Tai-lok Lui, 2022. "The Sinicisation of the Hong Kong economy or the Hongkongnisation of the Greater Bay Area: are we ‘barking up the wrong tree’?," Asia Pacific Business Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(5), pages 719-739, October.
    26. Cheung Steven N.S., 2021. "On the Observability Requirement in Economics as an Axiomatic Science," Man and the Economy, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-19, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Azadi, Hossein & Ehteshammajd, Shaghayegh & Goli, Imaneh & Siamian, Narges & Movahhed Moghaddam, Saghi & Ho, Peter & Janečková, Kristina & Sklenička, Petr, 2024. "Advocacy and credibility of land tenure in Ethiopia: Mitigating conflicts and threats," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    2. Ho, Peter & Zevenbergen, Jaap & Tan, Rong, 2024. "The Credibility Thesis, a decade onwards: A review of the theoretical field, findings and future," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    3. Goyal, Yugank & Choudhury, Pranab Ranjan & Ghosh, Ranjan Kumar, 2022. "Informal land leasing in rural India persists because it is credible," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    4. Yang, Chen & Qian, Zhu, 2022. "The complexity of property rights embedded in the rural-to-urban resettlement of China: A case of Hangzhou," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    5. Groenewegen, John, 2022. "Institutional form (blueprints) and institutional function (process): Theoretical reflections on property rights and land," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    6. Vatn, Arild, 2023. "The credibility thesis – A commentary from an original institutionalist position," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    7. You, Heyuan & Zhang, Jinrong & Song, Yan, 2022. "Assessing conflict of farmland institutions using credibility theory: Implications for socially acceptable land use," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    8. Chen, Huirong, 2022. "Linking institutional function with form: Distributional dynamics, disequilibrium, and rural land shareholding in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    9. Ziqi Zhou & Yung Yau, 2021. "The Small Property Rights Housing Institution in Mainland China: The Perspective of Substitutability of Institutional Functions," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-19, August.
    10. Zhang, Xiaobo, 2006. "Asymmetric property rights in China's economic growth," DSGD discussion papers 28, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    11. Fan, Shengyue & He, Miao & Zhang, Tianyu & Huo, Yajing & Fan, Di, 2022. "Credibility measurement as a tool for conserving nature: Chinese herders’ livelihood capitals and payment for grassland ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    12. Qian, Chen & Antonides, Gerrit & Heerink, Nico & Zhu, Xueqin & Ma, Xianlei, 2022. "An economic-psychological perspective on perceived land tenure security: Evidence from rural eastern China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    13. Lawrence Lai & Frank Lorne, 2014. "Ambiguous Property Rights: A Taxonomic and Exploratory Account of Post-colonial Rural Housing in Chinese Hong Kong," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 51(10), pages 2052-2067, August.
    14. Perez-Moreno, Oscar, 2024. "Urban inequality and the social function of land value capture: The credibility thesis, financing tools and planning in Latin America," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    15. Alberto GABRIELE, 2001. "Science And Technology Policies, Industrial Reform And Technical Progress In China. Can Socialist Property Rights Be Compatible With Technological Catching Up?," UNCTAD Discussion Papers 155, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    16. Li Tian, 2008. "The Chengzhongcun Land Market in China: Boon or Bane? — A Perspective on Property Rights," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 282-304, June.
    17. Wang, Weiye & Liu, Jinlong, 2022. "Lessons of government centralization and credibility: A qualitative case-study of administrative change in Jiuzhaigou Nature Reserve, China (1982–2018)," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    18. Xu, Chenggang & Zhang, Xiaobo, 2009. "The evolution of Chinese entrepreneurial firms: Township-village enterprises revisited," IFPRI discussion papers 854, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    19. Dongshui Xie & Caiquan Bai & Huimin Wang & Qihang Xue, 2022. "The Land System and the Rise and Fall of China’s Rural Industrialization: Based on the Perspective of Institutional Change of Rural Collective Construction Land," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-22, June.
    20. Mieke Meurs, 2000. "Are Markets Like Mushrooms? and Other Neoliberal Quandries," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 32(3), pages 461-469, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:147:y:2024:i:c:s0264837724002886. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.