Embracing at Arm’s Length: Ronald Coase’s Uneasy Relationship with the Chicago School
| Autor: | Steven G. Medema |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
Economics and Econometrics
biology 060106 history of social sciences 05 social sciences Miller Cornerstone 06 humanities and the arts biology.organism_classification Coase theorem Memoir 0502 economics and business Kinship 0601 history and archaeology Sociology 050207 economics Order (virtue) Classics |
| Zdroj: | SSRN Electronic Journal. |
| ISSN: | 1556-5068 |
| Popis: | If there is, or was, a “Chicago school” of economics, Ronald Coase figured prominently in it. Each of the two classic discussions of the Chicago school, by Miller (1962) and Reder (1982), finger Coase among the school’s members — the former coming before Coase had even arrived at Chicago — and George Stigler does the same in the essay on Chicago included in his Memoirs (1988). The theorem that bears Coase’s name is regularly linked to the Chicago school, typically by commentators who are critical of both. That Coase took some small steps late in his career to distance himself a bit from certain points of view typically associated with Chicago has done little to sever this link in the professional mind. The purpose of this paper is not to comb through Coase’s publications in order to discern whether he should, or should not be, appropriately considered a member of the “Chicago school.” Instead, the paper takes up Coase’s views on the Chicago school, as found in his published and, especially, unpublished writings. Coase’s personal and professional papers, recently opened for examination in the University of Chicago’s Regenstein Library, reveal that his commentaries on the Chicago economics department and the “Chicago school” began already in the early 1960s, prior to his appointment at Chicago. These and later commentaries at once reveal a measure of kinship and significant differences of viewpoint, particularly as respects economic method. Pulling back the lens a bit further, the paper provides further evidence for the heterogeneity of views on fundamental questions that existed even among ostensibly cornerstone members of the so-called “Chicago school.” |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|