Copyright © Cambridge Political Economy Society
research-article |
Is the firm an individual?
*Ohio State University, Mansfield Campus
Abstract
This paper shows how three new institutionalist theories try, but ultimately fail to support the firm-as-individual thesis. First, Marx/Hart's idea of property rights and Coase/Williamson's notion of transaction costs are insufficient to substantiate the market/firm dichotomy. Second, Hayek's constructionist view presents the firm, as opposed to the market, as a designed orderno different from artifacts such as tables and cars. Third, 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.
Manuscript received August 18, 1995; final version received July 11, 1996.
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
W. A. Jackson On the social structure of markets Camb. J. Econ., March 1, 2007; 31(2): 235 - 253. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. L. Khalil An anatomy of authority: Adam Smith as political theorist Camb. J. Econ., January 1, 2005; 29(1): 57 - 71. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
