IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/revaec/v13y2000i2p193-208.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Chasing Phantoms in a Hollow Defense of Coase

Author

Listed:
  • Cordato, Roy E

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

Suggested Citation

  • Cordato, Roy E, 2000. "Chasing Phantoms in a Hollow Defense of Coase," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 13(2), pages 193-208, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:revaec:v:13:y:2000:i:2:p:193-208
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journals.kluweronline.com/issn/0889-3047/contents
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Walter Block, 2010. "Rejoinder To Boettke On Coasean Economics And Communism," Romanian Economic Business Review, Romanian-American University, vol. 5(3), pages 9-30, September.
    2. Vipin Veetil, 2011. "Conceptions of rationality in law and economics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 199-228, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

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

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.