What is the big difference between Coase and the Austrians in regards to property rights. On the surface, they seem compatible. What are the difference in nuance?
Solid_Choke:Coase Theorem only applies to cases where property rights are well defined and where transaction costs are zero (and then it only says the outcome will be efficient not that it will conform to justice). It doesn't conflict with the NAP because it isn't normative, but positive. Homesteading or the way in which property came into ownership is irrelevant to the truth value of the theorem.
Well, then I suppose the problem is favoring efficiency over justice. I may have botched my argument, but for the sake of trying to answer the OP here is Block on Coase. I forgot about psychic value, but you will see he argues that Coase is against NAP in the end.
http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_4.pdf
It's been a while since I studied this, but from what I remember Coase argues that in a property dispute it does not matter who had the initial property rights. I think he used radio frequencies, as well as a farmer/railway example. If two radio station are using the same frequency and interfering with each other he argues that whichever radio station is more profitable will make a deal with the other and pay them not to use that frequency, thus a advantageous situation for both parties.
I think this mainly differs from the Austrian school becuase property rights are derived from homesteading. In other words, who ever established the initial right and use of the radio frequency through homesteading has a case against the intruder. So I suppose to sumamrize, Coase favors the wealthier party in any property dispute and disregards who established the right to the property first.
To double summarize: Coase Theorum conflicts with the non-aggression principle.
Solarist: It's been a while since I studied this, but from what I remember Coase argues that in a property dispute it does not matter who had the initial property rights. I think he used radio frequencies, as well as a farmer/railway example. If two radio station are using the same frequency and interfering with each other he argues that whichever radio station is more profitable will make a deal with the other and pay them not to use that frequency, thus a advantageous situation for both parties. I think this mainly differs from the Austrian school becuase property rights are derived from homesteading. In other words, who ever established the initial right and use of the radio frequency through homesteading has a case against the intruder. So I suppose to sumamrize, Coase favors the wealthier party in any property dispute and disregards who established the right to the property first. To double summarize: Coase Theorum conflicts with the non-aggression principle.
Coase Theorem only applies to cases where property rights are well defined and where transaction costs are zero (and then it only says the outcome will be efficient not that it will conform to justice). It doesn't conflict with the NAP because it isn't normative, but positive. Homesteading or the way in which property came into ownership is irrelevant to the truth value of the theorem.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Whatever is efficient is just. - some famous utilitarian.
Agreed. The Problem of Social Cost doesn't ask (or answer) "what is the nature of property rights?".
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap