Comments on: Coase and the Myth of Fisher Body http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/09/12/coase-and-the-myth-of-fisher-body/ Economics of organizations, strategy, entrepreneurship, innovation, and more Sat, 17 May 2008 01:06:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: Gary Shiu http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/09/12/coase-and-the-myth-of-fisher-body/#comment-3471 Gary Shiu Fri, 29 Sep 2006 01:48:19 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.wordpress.com/2006/09/12/coase-and-the-myth-of-fisher-body/#comment-3471 Steven has recently published a series of books on price theory called Economic Explanation (in Chinese). In these books, he lays out clearly the Washingtonian approach to transaction costs economics. Steven has recently published a series of books on price theory called Economic Explanation (in Chinese). In these books, he lays out clearly the Washingtonian approach to transaction costs economics.

]]> By: Gary Shiu http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/09/12/coase-and-the-myth-of-fisher-body/#comment-3470 Gary Shiu Fri, 29 Sep 2006 01:35:41 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.wordpress.com/2006/09/12/coase-and-the-myth-of-fisher-body/#comment-3470 Actually Barzel did acknowledge Cheung's important influence on his thouhgts: First he did so in his 1995 introductory essay for his collected papers and secondly when he wrote a small pamplet celebrating the publication of Steven Cheung's collected essays (in English) late last year. Gary Shiu Actually Barzel did acknowledge Cheung’s important influence on his thouhgts:

First he did so in his 1995 introductory essay for his collected papers and secondly when he wrote a small pamplet celebrating the publication of Steven Cheung’s collected essays (in English) late last year.

Gary Shiu

]]> By: Lawrence H. White http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/09/12/coase-and-the-myth-of-fisher-body/#comment-3460 Lawrence H. White Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:39:06 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.wordpress.com/2006/09/12/coase-and-the-myth-of-fisher-body/#comment-3460 Here is some <a href="http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=cheung27&date=20030127" rel="nofollow"> news about Cheung </a>: he has been charged with faking Chinese antiques. Here is some news about Cheung : he has been charged with faking Chinese antiques.

]]> By: Jung-Chin Shen http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/09/12/coase-and-the-myth-of-fisher-body/#comment-2480 Jung-Chin Shen Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:46:27 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.wordpress.com/2006/09/12/coase-and-the-myth-of-fisher-body/#comment-2480 Excellent post. Since I have the privilege to read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_N._S._Cheung" rel="nofollow">Steven N. S. Cheung’s</a> Chinese books, I would like to briefly mention his reflections on this issue about his working experience with Coase. Alchian is Cheung’s dissertation advisor (Demsetz has also been very influential), but he most closely exchanges ideas with Coase, partly because of his postdoc experience at the Department of Economics of the University of Chicago. Coase’s “inductive” approach perhaps can date back to his education training in UK, which is said as to why he includes the article, “The Lighthouse in Economics,” into his 1988 book. However, perhaps the best article on this issue is not the lighthouse article, but Cheung’s <a href="http://www.jstor.org/view/00222186/ap020023/02a00030/0" rel="nofollow">The Fable of the Bees</a>, because the latter article gives an unambiguous account against the blackboard economics. It is actually Coase who suggested Cheung to conduct an investigation on the topic. In the last paragraph of the bees article, Cheung says, “I have no grounds for criticizing Meade and other economists who follow the Pigovian tradition for their use of the bee example to illustrate a theoretical point: certainly, resource allocation would in general differ from what is observed if the factors were “unpaid.” My main criticism, rather, concerns their approach to economic inquiry in failing to investigate the real-world situation and in arriving at policy implications out of sheer imagination. As a result, their work contributes little to our understanding of the actual economic system.” When the three GM-Fisher Body articles came out at the Journal of Law and Economics, I was taking a course from Robert Gibbons of MIT who was shortly visiting INSEAD at that time. He also said that the three articles do not bother him at all since he finds holdup is a very useful concept for a researcher. Cheung has been very important to bridge Coase and North and Barzel. In his 1990 book, North said his understanding of economic organization should be attributed to Cheung. But I find no such acknowledgement in Barzel’s property rights book, even though he says that Cheung’s papers are ground-breaking in the book. Finally, the Washington approach is getting closer to the neoclassical economics relative to Coase’s approach. Another thing that I find interesting is that Oliver Williamson rarely cites Cheung’s work (only once?), even though he heavily cites Coase, Alchian, Demsetz, North, and even Barzel. Although Cheung had been influential during the period of China economic reform, and he says that Milton Friedman finally agrees that he is wrong about his objection to Cheung’s decision to go back to Hong Kong, I find most of his most important works were done when he was in the US. After some infamous events a couple of years ago, I rarely heard more news about Cheung since ever. Excellent post. Since I have the privilege to read Steven N. S. Cheung’s Chinese books, I would like to briefly mention his reflections on this issue about his working experience with Coase. Alchian is Cheung’s dissertation advisor (Demsetz has also been very influential), but he most closely exchanges ideas with Coase, partly because of his postdoc experience at the Department of Economics of the University of Chicago. Coase’s “inductive” approach perhaps can date back to his education training in UK, which is said as to why he includes the article, “The Lighthouse in Economics,” into his 1988 book. However, perhaps the best article on this issue is not the lighthouse article, but Cheung’s The Fable of the Bees, because the latter article gives an unambiguous account against the blackboard economics. It is actually Coase who suggested Cheung to conduct an investigation on the topic. In the last paragraph of the bees article, Cheung says,

“I have no grounds for criticizing Meade and other economists who follow the Pigovian tradition for their use of the bee example to illustrate a theoretical point: certainly, resource allocation would in general differ from what is observed if the factors were “unpaid.” My main criticism, rather, concerns their approach to economic inquiry in failing to investigate the real-world situation and in arriving at policy implications out of sheer imagination. As a result, their work contributes little to our understanding of the actual economic system.”

When the three GM-Fisher Body articles came out at the Journal of Law and Economics, I was taking a course from Robert Gibbons of MIT who was shortly visiting INSEAD at that time. He also said that the three articles do not bother him at all since he finds holdup is a very useful concept for a researcher.

Cheung has been very important to bridge Coase and North and Barzel. In his 1990 book, North said his understanding of economic organization should be attributed to Cheung. But I find no such acknowledgement in Barzel’s property rights book, even though he says that Cheung’s papers are ground-breaking in the book. Finally, the Washington approach is getting closer to the neoclassical economics relative to Coase’s approach. Another thing that I find interesting is that Oliver Williamson rarely cites Cheung’s work (only once?), even though he heavily cites Coase, Alchian, Demsetz, North, and even Barzel.

Although Cheung had been influential during the period of China economic reform, and he says that Milton Friedman finally agrees that he is wrong about his objection to Cheung’s decision to go back to Hong Kong, I find most of his most important works were done when he was in the US. After some infamous events a couple of years ago, I rarely heard more news about Cheung since ever.

]]>