Coase Teoremine Alternatif Bakış

Öz

Bu makalenin ana hedefi Coase teoremini almaşık yaklaşımlara odaklanarak incelemektir. Yazında teoremin yerleşik versiyonu sıklıkla irdelenmesine rağmen alternatif yorumlar yeterince dikkate alınmamaktadır. Oysaki, Coase teoreminin ayrımlı şekilde değerlendirilmesi “Hukuk ve Ekonomi” disiplininde daha sistematik ve kapsamlı araştırmaların yapılmasını mümkün kılacaktır. Bu amaçla çalışmada öncelikle teoremin yerleşik versiyonu işlem maliyetleri ve mülkiyet hakları çerçevesinde irdelenmiş; daha sonra teoremin geçerliliğini sorgulamak amacıyla standart aktarıma yöneltilen eleştiriler taranmıştır. Gözlemlenen alternatif yaklaşımlar tartışılarak makale sonlandırılmıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Coase teoremi,işlem maliyetleri,mülkiyet hakları

Coase Teoremine Alternatif Bakış

Öz

The primary goal of this article is to examine the Coase theorem by focusing on the alternative approaches. Although the mainstream version of the theorem has been studied frequently in the literature, the alternative views have been rarely discussed. However, illustrating the theorem in different ways can lead to a more systematic and thorough examination in the discipline of “Law and Economics”. To accomplish this goal, the study starts with an investigation of the mainstream version of the theorem in the context of transaction costs and property rights; and followed by a review of the criticisms that have been directed against the standard demonstration in order to address the validity of the theorem. The paper is concluded with a discussion of the alternative approaches

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Coase theorem,transaction costs,property rights

Kaynakça

1. AIVAZIAN, V. A. and J. L. CALLEN; (1981), “The Coase Theo- rem And The Empty Core”, Journal of Law and Economics, (1), pp. 175-181.
2. ALLEN, D. W.; (2000), “Transaction Costs”, B. BOUCKAERT and G. DE GEEST (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Law and Economics
3. BUCHANAN, J.; (1973), “The Coase Theorem And The Theory
4. Of The State”, Natural Resources Journal, 13, pp. 579-594. CALABRESI, G.; (1968), “Transaction Costs, Resource Alloca- tion And Liability Rules-A Comment”, Journal of Law and Eco- nomics, 11(1), pp. 67-73.
5. CHEUNG, S. N. S.; (1998), “The Transaction Costs Paradigm”
6. COASE, R. H.; (1981), “The Coase Theorem And The Empty
7. Core: A Comment”, Journal of Law and Economics, 24(1), pp. 187. COASE, R. H.; (1988), The Firm, The Market, And The Law
8. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. COLEMAN, J., (1980), “Efficiency, Exchange, And Auction

9. Philosophic Aspects Of The Economic Approach To Law”, Cali- fornia Law Review, 6(2), pp. 221-249. COLEMAN, J.; (1982), “The Normative Basis Of Economic
10. COOTER, R.; (1982), “The Cost Of Coase”, The Journal of Le- gal Studies, 11(1), pp. 1-33.
11. COOTER, R. and T. ULEN; (2004), Law and Economics, Third edition, Pearson/Addison Wesley, US.
12. ÇETİN, T.; (2012), “İktisat, Kurumsal İktisat Ve İktisat Sosyolo- jisi”, Sosyoloji Konferansları, 45 (1), ss. 43-73.
13. DAHLMAN, C. J.; (1979), “The Problem Of Externality”, Journal
14. Of Law And Economics, 22(1), pp. 141-162. DONOHUE; J. J. III; (1989), “Diverting The Coasean River: In- centive Schemes To Reduce Unemployment Spells”, The Yale Law Journal, 99(3), pp. 549-609.
15. DEMSETZ, H.; (1972), “When Does The Rule Of Liability Mat- ter?”, Journal of Legal Studies, 1(1), pp. 13-28.
16. DEMSETZ, H.; (2011), “The Problem Of Social Cost: What
17. Problem? A Critique Of The Reasoning Of A. C. Pigou And R. H. Coase”, Review of Law and Economics, 7, pp. 1-13. ELLICKSON, R. C.; (1986), “Of Coase And Cattle: Dispute
18. Resolution Among Neighbors In Shasta County”, Stanford Law Review, 38(3), pp. 623-687. ELLICKSON, R. C.; (1991), Order Without law: How Neigh- bours Settle Disputes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
19. FARBER, D. A.; (1997), “Parody Lost/Pragmatism Regained
20. The Ironic History Of The Coase Theorem”, Virginia Law Re- view, 83(2), pp. 397-428. FRECH, H. E. III; (1979), “The Extended Coase Theorem And Long Run Equilibrium: The Non-Equivalence Of Liability Rules
21. And Property Rights”, Economic Inquiry, 17(2), pp. 254-268. FRIEDMAN, D.; (1987), “Economic Analysis Of Law”, J. EAT
22. WELL, M. MILGATE and P. K. NEWMAN (Ed.), In The New Palgrave: A Dictionary Of Economics, Macmillan, USA. FURUBOTN, E. G. and S. PEJOVICH, (1974), The Economics
23. Of Property Rights, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA. HALPIN, A.; (2007), “Disproving The Coase Theorem”, Eco- nomics and Philosophy, 23(3), pp. 321-341.
24. HODGSON, G. M.; (2000), “What Is The Essence Of Institu- tional Economics?”, Journal of Economic Issues, 34(2), pp. 329.
25. HOFFMAN, E. and M. L. SPITZER; (1982). The Coase Theo- rem: Some Experimental Tests”, Journal of Law and Econom- ics, 25(1), pp. 73-98.
26. HOLDERNESS, C. G.; (1989). “The Assignment Of Rights, En- try Effects, And The Allocation Of Resources”, The Journal of Legal Studies, 18(1), pp. 181-189.
27. IŞIKTAÇ Y. ve U. KOLOŞ; (2015), Hukuk Sosyolojisi, Bilgi Üni- versitesi Yayınları, İstanbul.
28. KAHNEMAN, D., KNETSCH, J. L. and R. H. THALER; (1990)
29. “Experimental Tests Of The Endowment Effect And The Coase Theorem’, Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), pp. 1325-1348.
30. Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 13(2), ss. 204. KAPLOW, L., and S. SHAVELL; (2002), “Economic Analysis
31. Of Law”, A. J. AUERBACH and M. FELDSTEIN (Ed.), Hand- book Of Public Economics, Volume 3, Elsevier Science B.V., pp. 1661-1784.
32. KUECHLE, G. and D. Rios, (2012), “The Coase Theorem Re- considered: The Role Of Alternative Activities”, International
33. Review of Law and Economics, 32(1), pp. 129-134. LEE, B. A. and H. E. SMITH; (2012), “The Nature Of Coasean
34. Property”, International Review of Economics, 59(2), pp. 145- MACKAAY, E.; (2000), “History Of Law and Economics”, B.
35. BOUCKAERT and G. DE GEEST (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 65-117. MARCHAND, J. R. and K. P. RUSSELL; (1973). “Externalities
36. Liability, Separability, And Resource Allocation”, The American Economic Review, 63(4), pp. 611-620. MCKELVEY, R. and T. PAGE; (2000), “An Experimental Study
37. Of The Effect Of Private Information In The Coase Theorem”, Experimental Economics, 3(3), pp. 187-213. MEDEMA, S.; (2011), “A Case Of Mistaken Identity: George
38. Stigler, -The Problem Of Social Cost- And The Coase Theo- rem”, European Journal of Law and Economics, 31(1), pp. 11- MEDEMA, S. and R. O. Jr. ZERBE; (2000), “The Coase Theo- rem”, B. BOUCKAERT and G. DE GEEST (Ed.), Encyclope- dia of Law and Economics, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. –892.
39. MURTY, S.; (2010), “Externalities And Fundamental Noncon- vexities: A Reconciliation Of Approaches To General Equilib- rium Externality Modeling And Implications For Decentraliza- tion”, Journal of Economic Theory, 145(1), pp. 331-353.