On Fri, Dec 26, 2025 at 01:19 PM, Jim Farmelant wrote:

> 
> a partial Coase–Marx synthesis might be possible

Thanks for Coase's Prize Lecture. This is the part that astonishes me:

> 
> "Stigler argues that the Coase Theorem follows from the standard
> assumptions of economic theory. Its logic cannot be questioned, only its
> domain7. I do not disagree with Stigler. However, I tend to regard the
> Coase Theorem as a stepping stone on the way to an analysis of an economy
> with positive transaction costs. The significance to me of the Coase
> Theorem is that it undermines the Pigovian system."
> 

"I do not disagree... however" is such a subtle way of putting it! Does the 
Coase Theorem "undermine the Pigovian system" or does it only undermine one 
aspect of it? My criticism of Coase in ' The Hours of Labour and the Problem of 
Social Cost ( 
https://www.disei.unifi.it/upload/sub/pubblicazioni/msb/vol_12_2011/walker2011.pdf
 ) ' for not addressing part three of The Economics of Welfare, which turns to 
labour issues and "industrial peace." Pigou doesn't use the term transaction 
costs but it is evident from the complexity of the interactions between wage 
rates, hours, physiology, health, attention, fatigue, injury, and output (etc.) 
that he does discuss that these are (or have), in fact, "transaction costs."

Chapter VII of part two of The Economics of Welfare might be a good place to 
begin looking for a "partial Coase-Marx synthesis." Pigou references Chapman's 
"Hours of Labour" article there and it is clearly the basis for his discussion. 
The connection can be found with Chapter 10 of Capital , "The Working Day" and 
I would particularly recommend a dramatized speech of a worker to the 
capitalist treating his labour power according to "the law of commodity 
exchange." (page 342-343 in the Penguin edition).*

*Incidentally, this worker's plea, which Marx attributes in part to a manifesto 
produced by the committee of London building workers during the 1859-60 
strikes, actually should be credited to an 1861 article in the Westminster 
Review by Edward Spencer Beesly.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#39887): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/39887
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/116944738/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy 
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Reply via email to