Piguvianism vs. Coasianism: Who Wins?
https://doi.org/10.33293/1609-1442-2021-3(94)-49-57
Abstract
The main characteristics of approaches to the discussion of the sufficiency of grounds for the introduction / cancellation of state regulation due to the identification of failures in the price mechanism are revealed. The comparison of approaches is presented on the basis of the problem of externalities. In this regard, the provisions from the theory of externalities have been clarified in terms of their definition and correlation with the conditions for optimal allocation of resources, and certain types of external effects are presented. The key types of correction of price mechanism failures are considered, including regulatory intervention, setting up the price mechanism (including the creation of missing markets), maintaining the status quo with externalities. On this basis, the main properties of the Pigouvian and Coasian approaches in economics are determined in relation to the problems of this form of market failure. The features of Coasianism as a functionalist approach to research in contrast to fundamental liberalism are revealed. Taking into account the importance of values, the opportunities for designing of compensatory transactions and the supply and demand of economic knowledge, assessments of the prospects of functionalism and fundamentalisms are presented as a guide to action in the field of discussion and political decision-making. The comparative advantages of functionalism and fundamentalisms in the intellectual traditions of discussing the role of the state in the economy are shown.
Keywords
externalities,
coasianism,
piguvianism,
regulatory fundamentalism,
liberal fundamentalism,
Austrian economics,
functionalism
Journal of Economic Literature (JEL): D62; E14; H23
Supporting agencies: The article was prepared as part of the research work of the state assignment of the RANEPA.
About the Author
Andrey E. Shastitko
Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow;
RANEPA under the President of the Russian Federation, Moscow
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Coase R. (1993). The Firm, the market, and the Law. Moscow, Delo, Ltd (in Russian).
2. Novikov V. (2003). The Influence of the Russian Antitrust Legislation on Economic Development. Voprosy Ekonomiki, no. 9, pp. 33–48 (in Russian).
3. Novikov V. (2004). On the Right of Property on Externalities. Voprosy Ekonomiki, no. 1, рр. 141–146 (in Russian).
4. Tambovtsev V. L. (2019). Ideas and interests, economic policy and institutions. Voprosy Ekonomiki. no. 5, pp. 26–45 (in Russian).
5. Tirole Zh. (2017). An economist in the public space. Voprosy Ekonomiki, no. 8, pp. 42–55 (in Russian).
6. Williamson O. (1996). Economic institutions of capitalism. Firms, Markets, Relational contracting. St-Petersburg, Lenizdat (in Russian).
7. Shastitko A. (2003). Pouring Water out of the Tub, Do not Forget the Baby! (On the Correlation of Antimonopoly Policy and Economic Development). Voprosy Ekonomiki, no. 12, 111–119 (in Russian).
8. Shastitko A. (2004). Reforming Antimonopoly Regulation in Russia: Agenda and Design of Discussion. Voprosy Ekonomiki, no. 3, pp. 140–148 (in Russian).
9. Shastitko A. (2010). The New Institutional Economics. Moscow, TEIS, 4th ed. (in Russian).
10. Shastitko A. (2013). Economics effects of errors in rules enforcement and enactment. Moscow, Delo (in Russian).
11. Armentano D. (1982). Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure. New York: John Wiley.
12. Armentano D. (1999). Antitrust policy: The Case for Repeal. Lidwig von Mises Institute: Auburn.
Review
For citations:
Shastitko A.E. Piguvianism vs. Coasianism: Who Wins? Economics of Contemporary Russia. 2021;(3):49-57. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.33293/1609-1442-2021-3(94)-49-57
Views:
805
Email this article 