Banking Beyond Banks and Money pp 213-237
Are Transaction Costs Drivers of Financial Institutions? Contracts Made in Heaven, Hell, and the Cloud in Between
Abstract
In 16th century Europe, the revolution in printing technology and increasing literacy in European cities created a positive shock to capital productivity. At the same time, the spread of Protestantism in Northern Europe induced individuals to honour contracts or risk exclusion from the Kingdom of God. Max Weber would argue that the religious institution of Protestantism, by dissuading defection from agreements, had allowed a new form of almost trustless exchange with strangers. Strict self-enforcing religious rules restrained individuals from opportunistic behaviour thus lowering the cost of monitoring and enforcing contracts. This led to increasing commerce and economic growth. A better capitalized, but less strict Catholic Southern Europe was unable to exert control and reduce contracting costs in the same way leading to less exchange. We argue that peer to peer technologies, such as Bitcoin, Blockchains, smart contracts, and peer-to-peer (P2P) legal platforms recall these historical evolutions. We anticipate that these technologies will reduce the cost of contracting, specifically with regards to contract monitoring and enforcement. Trustless exchange without some of the current intermediaries specializing in monitoring and enforcement technologies will have a significant impact on the financial system and its institutional structure. Moving beyond theory, this chapter discusses some of the major manifestations of technologies capable to strongly decrease the cost of contracting, and it proposes a certain class of models to explore how P2P technologies, and the concomitant reduction in transaction costs they will cause, can be expected to affect financial exchange.
Keywords
Transaction costs Property rights Transactional relationships Contracts and reputation NetworksReferences
- Alchian, A., Demsetz, H.: The property rights paradigm. J. Econ. Hist. 33(1), 16–27 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Arrow, K.J., Hahn, F.: General Competitive Analysis. Holden-Day, San Francisco (1971)MATHGoogle Scholar
- Bai, J., Philippon, T., Savov, A.: Have Financial Markets Become More Informative? Working Paper, NYU Stern Business School, April (2014)Google Scholar
- Barzel, Y.: Economic Analysis of Property Rights, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press (1997)Google Scholar
- Blum, U., Dudley, L.: Religion and economic growth: was weber right? J. Evol. Econ. 11(2), 207–230 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Capra, M.C., Tanaka, T., Camerer, C.F., Feiler, L., Sovero, V., Noussair, C.N.: The impact of simple institutions in experimental economies with poverty traps. Econ. J. 119, 977–1009 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Coase, R.: The nature of the firm. Economica 4, 386–405 (1937)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Coase, R.: The problem of social cost. J. Law Econ. 3, 1–44 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cukierman, A.: Central bank independence and monetary control. Econ. J. 1437–1448 (1994)Google Scholar
- Eisenstein E.: The Printing Press As an Agent of Change. Cambridge University Press (1979)Google Scholar
- Escosura, L., Villarroya, I.: Contract enforcement and argentina’s long run decline. Cliometrica 3(1), 1–26 (2009). Working paper in Economic HistoryCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Davies, R., Tracey, B.: Too big to be efficient? The impact of implicit subsidies on estimates of scale economies for banks. J. Money Credit Banking 46(s1), 219253 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- De Grauwe, P.: Top-down versus bottom-up macroeconomics. CESifo Econ. Stud. 56, 465–497 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Diamond, D.W.: Financial intermediation and delegated monitoring. Rev. Econ. Stud. 51, 393–414 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- Diamond, J., Guns, G.: Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W.W. Norton, New York (1997)Google Scholar
- Duffie, D.: The failure mechanics of dealer banks. J. Econ. Perspect. 24(1), 51–72 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Granovetter, M.: Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am. J. Sociol. 91(3), 481–510 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Greif, A.: Contract enforceability and economic institutions in early trade: the Maghribi traders. Am. Econ. Rev. 83(3), 525–548 (1993)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Kasper, W., Streit, M.: Institutional Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (1998)Google Scholar
- Kiyotaki, N., Wright, R.: On money as a medium of exchange. J. Polit. Econ. 927–954 (1989)Google Scholar
- Marlowe, C.: The Tragical History of Dr. Faustus. Routledge (2005, first published 1604)Google Scholar
- Myers, S.C.: Determinants of corporate borrowing. J. Financ. Econ. 5(2), 147–175 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Consulted 1(2012), 28 (2008)Google Scholar
- North, C.D.: Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
- Nowak, M.A., Sigmund, K.: A strategy of win-stay-lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the prisoner’s dilemma game. Nature 364, 56–58 (1993)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nowak, M.A., Bonhoeffer, S., May, R.M.: More spatial games. Int. J. Bifurcat. Chaos 4(1), 33–56 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- Olson, M.: The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1965)Google Scholar
- Philippon, T.: Has the U.S. Finance Industry Become Less Efficient? On the Theory and Measurement of Financial Intermediation, Working Paper, New York University (2012)Google Scholar
- Roberts, J.: The Modern Firm: Organizational Design for Performance and Growth. Oxford University Press (2004)Google Scholar
- Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A., Trebbi, F.: Institutions Rule: The Primacy of Institutions Over Geography and Integration in Economic Development National Bureau of Economic Research (2002)Google Scholar
- Shubik, M.: On understanding money. World Econ. 2, 95–120 (2001)Google Scholar
- Swanson, T.: Consensus-as-a-service: a brief report on the emergence of permissioned, distributed ledger systems, pp. 1–66 (2015)Google Scholar
- Triantis, G.: Improving Contract Quality: Modularity, Technology, and Innovation in Contract Design, p. 450. JL Bus. & Fin, Stan (2013)Google Scholar
- Watts, D.: Small Worlds. Princeton University Press (1999)Google Scholar
- Weingast, B.: The economic role of political institutions: market-preserving federalism and economic development. J. Law, Econ. Organ. 11(1), 1–31 (1995)Google Scholar
- Wickelgren, A.L.: Standardization as a solution to the reading costs of form contracts. J. Inst. Theor. Econ. 167, 30–39 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar