Advertisement

Introduction

Chapter
  • 666 Downloads

Abstract

The first principle of Economics is that every agent is actuated only by the self interest. The workings of this principle may be viewed under two aspects, according as the agent acts without, or with, the consent of others affected by his actions. In wide senses, the first species of action may be called war, the second, contract.

References

  1. Arrow, K. J. (1985). Informational structure of the firm. The American Economic Review, 75(2), 303–307.Google Scholar
  2. Ayres, I., & Gertner, R. (1992). Strategic contractual inefficiency and the optimal choice of legal rules. The Yale Law Journal, 101(4), 729–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernheim, B. D., & Whinston, M. D. (1998). Incomplete contracts and strategic ambiguity. American Economic Review, 88, 902–932.Google Scholar
  4. Che, Y. K., & Sákovics, J. (2004). A dynamic theory of holdup. Econometrica, 72(4), 1063–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Che, Y. K., & Hausch, D. B. (1999). Cooperative investments and the value of contracting. American Economic Review, 125–147.Google Scholar
  6. Cooter, R., & Ulen, T. (2012). An economic theory of contract law and topics. In Law and economics (pp. 276–373). Boston, MA: Pearson Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  7. Edgeworth, F. Y. (1881). Mathematical psychics: An essay on the application of mathematics to the moral sciences. London: C.K. Paul.Google Scholar
  8. Hart, O., & Holmstrom, B. (1987). Advances in economic theory. In World Congress.Google Scholar
  9. Hart, O., & Moore, J. (1988). Incomplete contracts and renegotiation. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 56, 755–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hayek, F. A. (1974). The pretence of knowledge. American Economic Review, 79(6), 3–7.Google Scholar
  11. Klein, B., Crawford, R. G., & Alchian, A. A. (1978). Vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive contracting process. The Journal of Law and Economics, 21(2), 297–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Macaulay, S. (1963). Non-contractual relations in business: A preliminary study. American Sociological Review, 28, 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). The Schumpeterian tradeoff revisited. The American Economic Review, 72(1), 114–132.Google Scholar
  14. Peter, L. J. (1986). The peter pyramid: Or, will we ever get the point? William Morrow & Co.Google Scholar
  15. Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  16. Rasmusen, E. B. (2006). Explaining incomplete contracts as the result of contract-reading costs. Advances in Theoretical Economics, 6(1), Article 7, 722. http://www.bepress.com/bejte/advances/vol6/iss1/art7.
  17. Singh, A. (2004). Law of contract and specific relief. New Delhi: Eastern Book Co.Google Scholar
  18. Tirole, J. (1999). Incomplete contracts: Where do we stand? Econometrica, 67(4), 741–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies (pp. 26–30). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsDelhi School of EconomicsDelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations