Abstract
This note suggests that Coase's “The Problem of Social Cost” has been read and interpreted too broadly to apply to all aspects of law. Drawing from Coase's own work, I show that Coase was narrowly focused on the economic analysis of negative externalities. This understanding of the paper precludes it from being used as a justification for the broad redistribution of property rights for the purpose of wealth maximization. This understanding of Coase's paper also defends his work against charges from those who object to making the determination of property rights secondary to the maximization of wealth.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Block, Walter. (1996). “O. J.'s Defense: A Reductio Ad Absurdum of the Economics of Coase and Posner.”European Journal of Law and Economics 3, 265–286.
Coase, R. H. (1960). “The Problem of Social Cost.”Journal of Law and Economics 3, 1–44.
Coase, Ronald H., (1988). “The 1987 McCorkle Lecture: Blackmail.”Virginia Law Review 74, 655–676.
Coase, R. H. (1991). “The Institutional Structure of Production.” Reprinted in R. H. Coase,Essays on Economics and Economists. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Coase, R. H. (1993). “Law and Economics at Chicago.”Journal of Law and Economics 36, 239–254.
Coase, Ronald H. (1995). “Ronald H. Coase.” In William Breit and Roger W. Spencer (ed.),Lives of the Laureates: Thirteen Nobel Economists. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zorn, D.J. Defending coase against false charges: A comment on block. Eur J Law Econ 3, 287–289 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00709144
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00709144