The “Alternative” Theories of Knight and Coase, and the Modern Theory of the Firm
- 1 January 1996
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Journal of the History of Economic Thought
- Vol. 18 (1) , 76-95
- https://doi.org/10.1017/s1053837200002960
Abstract
In his contribution to the 1987 conference that celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of Ronald Coase's “The Nature of the Firm” (1937), Harold Demsetz noted that from the birth of modern economics to 1970, “only two works seem to have been written about the theory of the firm that have altered the perspectives of the profession: Knight's Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit (1921) and Coase's ‘The Nature of the Firm’” (Demsetz 1993, in Williamson and Winter 1993, p. 159). It is easy to feel uncomfortable with this observation. First, Coase's article was ignored for decades. Second, Knight's book did not receive much attention because of its theory of economic organization, but because of its statement of the theory of perfect competition (Stigler 1957; Machovec 1995), its distinction between risk and uncertainty, and its theory of profits (see, e.g., Boulding 1942 and Papandreou 1952).'Keywords
This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit:
- Personal KnowledgePublished by University of Chicago Press ,2015
- A Resource-Based Theory of the Firm: Knowledge Versus OpportunismOrganization Science, 1996
- Perfect Competition and the Transformation of EconomicsPublished by Taylor & Francis ,1995
- Information Assets, Technology and OrganizationManagement Science, 1994
- The Problem with Dispersed Knowledge: Firms in Theory and PracticeKyklos, 1993
- The coasian and knightian theories of the firmManagerial and Decision Economics, 1989
- Hayek's TransformationHistory of Political Economy, 1988
- KNIGHT'S “MORAL HAZARD” THEORY OF ORGANIZATIONEconomic Inquiry, 1987
- The Problem of Social CostThe Journal of Law and Economics, 1960
- The Nature of the FirmEconomica, 1937