Publications of Steven G. Medema
%%
@article{fds376121,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {"i GET by with A LITTLE HELP from MY FRIENDS ... ": AN
EDITOR'S RETROSPECTIVE},
Journal = {Journal of the History of Economic Thought},
Year = {2024},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {In this article, Steven Medema provides some reflections on
his tenure as editor of the Journal of the History of
Economic Thought (1999 - 2008). This was a time of
significant transition in the life of the journal, and the
successful navigation of this period provides an excellent
illustration of how much an editor and a journal rely on the
assistance and support of both key individuals and the
broader community of scholars in the field.},
Doi = {10.1017/S1053837223000470},
Key = {fds376121}
}
@article{fds372659,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {IDENTIFYING A "cHICAGO SCHOOL" of ECONOMICS: On the ORIGINS,
DIFFUSION, and EVOLVING MEANINGS of A FAMOUS NAME
BRAND},
Journal = {Journal of the History of Economic Thought},
Year = {2023},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {Though the Chicago school has been the subject of no small
amount of research over the past several decades, that
scholarship has focused largely on persons, ideas, and
influence - in short, on the school itself. No attention has
been paid to the origins of that label and the avenues via
which the notion of a "Chicago school"of economics came to
be. This paper attempts to address that lacuna, drawing on
both published and archival resources. What emerges is a
story of a label of uncertain origin but wrapped up in
competing agendas, the first stage in the history of which
culminates in 1962 with its rejection by two of the very
people who helped birth it.},
Doi = {10.1017/S1053837223000123},
Key = {fds372659}
}
@article{fds372660,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Theorising public expenditures: welfare theorems, market
failures, and the turn from “public finance” to
“public economics”},
Journal = {European Journal of the History of Economic
Thought},
Volume = {30},
Number = {5},
Pages = {713-738},
Year = {2023},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {Public expenditure theory is a late-comer to the field of
public finance, despite laments over the lack of such a
theory dating to the late 1800s. This paper documents and
attempts to explain this transformation, locating its
origins in Richard Musgrave’s normative theory of the
public household and the adoption by subsequent thinkers of
new developments in welfare theory, which was seen to offer
a theoretically sophisticated a vision of the state’s role
as a response to the problem of market failure.},
Doi = {10.1080/09672567.2023.2248320},
Key = {fds372660}
}
@misc{fds370205,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {In search of Santa Claus: Samuelson, Stigler, and Coase
Theorem Worlds},
Pages = {71-89},
Booktitle = {Methodology and History of Economics: Reflections With and
Without Rules},
Year = {2022},
Month = {August},
ISBN = {9781032209463},
Doi = {10.4324/9781003266051-8},
Key = {fds370205}
}
@misc{fds368103,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Between LSE and Cambridge: Accounting for Ronald Coase’s
Fascination with Alfred Marshall},
Pages = {231-268},
Booktitle = {Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic
Thought},
Year = {2021},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {For most economists at Chicago, Marshall was simply an
input, the supplier of an approach to economic analysis. For
Ronald Coase, however, Marshall was much more than this—a
subject of fascination and, at times, almost a reverence and
obsession. Trained in the late 1920s and early 1930s at the
London School of Economics, where indifference and even
antipathy toward Marshall was widespread, and a member of
the LSE faculty from 1935 until his departure for the United
States in 1951, Coase would not have ranked high on the list
of those expected to become Marshall’s first
biographer—a project that Coase finally abandoned only
late in life—let alone one who drew on Marshall’s
methodological approach to castigate both modern economics
generally and certain of his (“Marshallian”) Chicago
colleagues in particular. Coase’s affinity for Marshall,
whom he considered both a “great economist” and a
“flawed human being,” requires some explanation, clues
toward which can be found both in his published writings and
in the voluminous materials from his researches on Marshall
now available in Coase’s archives. This paper examines
Coase’s biographical work on Marshall and his discussions
of Marshall’s economics for clues as to the sources of
Coase’s affinity for Marshall. The evidence suggests
explanations that are at once personal and
professional.},
Doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-53032-7_10},
Key = {fds368103}
}
@book{fds368104,
Author = {Caldari, K and Dardi, M and Medema, SG},
Title = {Introduction},
Pages = {v},
Year = {2021},
Month = {January},
Key = {fds368104}
}
@article{fds354577,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {The coase theorem at sixty},
Journal = {Journal of Economic Literature},
Volume = {58},
Number = {4},
Pages = {1045-1128},
Year = {2020},
Month = {December},
Abstract = {The Coase theorem is one of the most influential and
controversial ideas to emerge from post-World War II
economics. This article examines the theorem's origins,
diffusion, and the wide variety of uses to which it has been
put by economists and others over the sixty years since
Coase published "The Problem of Social Cost." Along the way,
we explore the ambiguity and controversy surrounding the
theorem, develop a Coase theorem that is valid as a
proposition in economic logic, and probe the implications of
all of this for the use of the Coase theorem going
forward.},
Doi = {10.1257/JEL.20191060},
Key = {fds354577}
}
@article{fds355145,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Embracing at arm's length: Ronald Coase's uneasy
relationship with the Chicago school},
Journal = {Oxford Economic Papers},
Volume = {72},
Number = {4},
Pages = {1072-1090},
Year = {2020},
Month = {October},
Abstract = {This paper takes up Ronald Coase's views on the Chicago
school, as found in his published and, especially,
unpublished writings. Coase's personal and professional
papers, recently opened for examination in the University of
Chicago's Regenstein Library, reveal that his commentaries
on the Chicago Economics Department and the Chicago school
began already in the early 1960s, prior to his appointment
at Chicago. These and later commentaries at once reveal a
measure of kinship and significant differences of viewpoint,
particularly as respects economic method. Pulling back the
lens a bit further, the paper provides additional evidence
for the heterogeneity of views on fundamental questions that
existed even among ostensibly cornerstone members of the
so-called 'Chicago school'.},
Doi = {10.1093/oep/gpaa011},
Key = {fds355145}
}
@article{fds366763,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {“Exceptional and Unimportant”? Externalities,
Competitive Equilibrium, and the Myth of a Pigovian
Tradition},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {52},
Number = {1},
Pages = {135-170},
Year = {2020},
Month = {February},
Abstract = {The notion of a Pigovian tradition in externality theory,
against which Ronald Coase and others reacted beginning in
the 1960s, has a long history. This article, though,
suggests that the literature of economics evidences no such
tradition, and that the discussion of externalities largely
disappeared from the literature following Pigou’s 1920
treatment, only to reemerge, in very different form, in the
1950s. Such concern as there was with externalities was
largely technical-as an impediment to the attainment of an
efficient equilibrium-rather than with externalities as
important real-world phenomena that required addressing via
“Pigovian” policy instruments. It was only in the late
1950s and 1960s, with the growing social and political
concern about large-scale pollution, that externality
analysis came to capture the attention of economists, but
even this early work on environmental topics was less
straightforwardly Pigovian than one might
expect.},
Doi = {10.1215/00182702-8009583},
Key = {fds366763}
}
@article{fds345507,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {The economist and the economist's audience},
Journal = {Journal of the History of Economic Thought},
Volume = {41},
Number = {3},
Pages = {335-341},
Year = {2019},
Month = {September},
Doi = {10.1017/S105383721900018X},
Key = {fds345507}
}
@article{fds354578,
Author = {Maas, H and Medema, SG and Guidi, M},
Title = {Introduction to economics as a public science. Part II:
Institutional settings},
Journal = {OEconomia},
Volume = {9},
Number = {3},
Pages = {427-432},
Year = {2019},
Month = {September},
Abstract = {This issue of Œconomia contains the second set of essays
that emerged from the conference “Economics and Public
Reason” hosted in May 2018 at the Centre Walras-Pareto for
the History of Economic and Political Thought at the
University of Lausanne.},
Doi = {10.4000/oeconomia.7424},
Key = {fds354578}
}
@article{fds354579,
Author = {Maas, H and Medema, SG and Guidi, M},
Title = {Introduction to economics as a public science},
Journal = {OEconomia},
Volume = {9},
Number = {2},
Pages = {201-207},
Year = {2019},
Month = {June},
Abstract = {This short article introduces readers to the papers
published in this issue on the theme of “public reason”
in economics. It provides ground to the notion of “public
reason” in economics as a two-way process taking place in
interstitial spaces between economics, as an academic
discipline, and the various publics in which economics-its
concepts, tools, and methods-acquires meaning as an
instrument of social understanding and political
change.},
Doi = {10.4000/oeconomia.5784},
Key = {fds354579}
}
@book{fds366764,
Author = {Samuels, WJ and Medema, SG},
Title = {Gardiner C. Means: Institutionalist and post
Keynesian},
Pages = {1-197},
Year = {2019},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9780873326155},
Abstract = {Gardiner Means has a secure place in the history of 20th
century economic thought, as the co-author with A.A.Berle of
“The Modern Corporation and Private Property”. But
according to Samuels and Medema, Means should be remembered
for major contributions in both micro- and macroeconomics.
The authors discuss Means's ideas of administered pricing
and profit maximization within the giant corporation, the
possible links between industrial structure and
macroeconomic performance, a theory of the firm as it
relates to the market, and the micro foundations of
macroeconomics. Central to Means's macroeconomics is his
theory that administered pricing generates inflation and
stagflation. Means, in the authors' view, was a seminal
thinker and a post-Keynesian economist, as well as an
institutionalist. This book also gives an precis of Means's
unusual career in government and the academy.},
Doi = {10.4324/9781315490854},
Key = {fds366764}
}
@misc{fds368509,
Author = {Marciano, A and Medema, SG},
Title = {Disciplinary collisions: Blum, Kalven and the economic
analysis of accident law at Chicago in the
1960s},
Pages = {53-75},
Booktitle = {Law and Economics as Interdisciplinary Exchange:
Philosophical, Methodological and Historical
Perspectives},
Year = {2019},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9780367135058},
Abstract = {The University of Chicago occupies a central place in the
history of Law and Economics. To this point, however, scant
attention has been given in the literature to how the
prospect of an economic analysis of law was received within
the law school at Chicago when the subject was in its
infancy. In this chapter we focus on the work of two
prominent dissenters: Law professors Walter J. Blum and
Harry Kalven, Jr. We show that, although immersed in
economics and interacting with the main actors of the Law
and Economics movement in the early 1950s, Blum and Kalven
largely rejected economics as a possible and useful tool for
solving legal problems, both because of their concerns about
the utility of economics in the legal realm and because of
their sense that economics and law are grounded in
fundamentally incompatible normative visions.},
Doi = {10.4324/9780429026850-4},
Key = {fds368509}
}
@book{fds345508,
Author = {Irwin, DA and Medema, SG},
Title = {Jacob Viner: Lectures in economics 301},
Pages = {1-159},
Year = {2017},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9781412851664},
Abstract = {This book presents, for the first time, a detailed
transcription of Jacob Viner’s Economics 301 class as
taught in 1930. These lecture notes provide insight into the
legacy of Jacob Viner, whose seminal contributions to fields
such as international economics and the history of economics
are well known, but whose impact in sparking the revival of
Marshallian microeconomics in the United States via his
classroom teaching has been less appreciated. Generations of
graduate students at the University of Chicago have taken
Economics 301. The course has been taught by such luminaries
as Milton Friedman and Gary Becker, and remains an
introduction to the analytical tools of microeconomics and
the distinctive Chicago way of thinking about the market
system. This demanding and rigorous course first became
famous in the 1930s when it was taught by Jacob Viner. When
read in tandem with the Transaction editions of Milton
Friedman’s Price Theory, Frank Knight's The Economic
Organization, and Gary Becker’s Economic Theory, Viner’s
lectures provide the reader with important insights into the
formative period of Chicago price theory. These recently
discovered notes from Viner’s class will be important for
historians of economic thought and anyone interested in the
origins of the Chicago School of Economics.},
Doi = {10.4324/9780203788110},
Key = {fds345508}
}
@misc{fds345509,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {His influence in the Anglo-Saxon world},
Pages = {115-118},
Booktitle = {Antonio de Viti de Marco: A Story Worth Remembering},
Year = {2016},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9781137534927},
Abstract = {Q. What could you tell us about the influence of the Italian
public finance school in general on the Anglo-American
economic thought? What happened was that because so little
of the Italian literature was translated into English, the
diffusion of this literature into Anglo Saxon public finance
was relatively slow. It was really De Viti who really
brought this to the English-speaking crowd sooner, because
his First Principles of Public Finance was translated into
English in the Thirties. 1 When Buchanan was a graduate
student he became exposed to De Viti’s First Principles
and it stimulated him to learn Italian. Buchanan’s
original interest was in Wicksell. Wicksell had done a great
deal of work on the relationship between voting processes
and government policy outcomes. 2 It was only after Buchanan
had read Wicksell that he ran into some of this Italian
literature, De Viti in particular, and when he did so he
recognized the important communalities between these two
streams of literature and decided that he needed to explore
this Italian literature even further. What was really
important for Buchanan about this early work was that it
viewed politics as a process that operated according to the
very same principles that the private sector market system
operated. So the voting process was seen as a process
basically equivalent to consumer purchases of goods and
services, where voting functions in the same way that
payment in the market place does; and just as voters are
consumers of goods and services provided by the government,
politicians are suppliers and the same with their companies,
are suppliers, so politics here was simply modeled as a
market exchange where you have the government sector
supplying public services, individuals demanding public
services, and you can model the political process as a
market, just like the market for apples and
oranges.},
Doi = {10.1057/978-1-137-53493-4_10},
Key = {fds345509}
}
@misc{fds352326,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Ronald Coase and the legal-economic nexus},
Pages = {291-304},
Booktitle = {The Elgar Companion to Ronald H. Coase},
Year = {2016},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9781782547983},
Key = {fds352326}
}
@misc{fds345510,
Author = {Backhouse, RE and Medema, SG},
Title = {Walras in the age of Marshall: An analysis of
English-language journals, 1890-1939},
Pages = {69-86},
Booktitle = {Economics and Other Branches - In the Shade of the Oak Tree:
Essays in Honour of Pascal Bridel},
Year = {2015},
Month = {July},
ISBN = {9781848935334},
Doi = {10.4324/9781315653808},
Key = {fds345510}
}
@article{fds345512,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {'A magnificent business prospect' the Coase theorem, the
extortion problem, and the creation of Coase theorem
worlds},
Journal = {Journal of Institutional Economics},
Volume = {11},
Number = {2},
Pages = {353-378},
Year = {2015},
Month = {June},
Abstract = {The Coase theorem, circa the 1970s, had no settled meaning
or content; instead, that meaning and content was created -
and in differing ways - by the modeling choices of scholars
who attempted to grapple with and assess the proposition
that Coase had laid out in 1960. These modeling decisions
included both the theoretical frameworks laid onto the
theorem and the assumptions (including meanings ascribed
thereto) said to underlie it. The present article
illustrates this using the 1960s and 1970s extortion debate
as a backdrop, showing how conclusions reached regarding the
theorem's validity hinged on the Coase theorem worlds
created by the authors involved.},
Doi = {10.1017/S174413741400023X},
Key = {fds345512}
}
@article{fds349169,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Economic rebel in retrospect},
Journal = {Journal of Economic Methodology},
Year = {2015},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {© 2015 Taylor & Francis Mark Blaug's contributions to
economics were many and significant. This essay provides a
review of Mark Blaug: Rebel with Many Causes (2014), edited
by Marcel Boumans and Matthias Klaes, which collects papers
from a set of conferences organized in Blaug's
memory.},
Doi = {10.1080/1350178X.2014.973751},
Key = {fds349169}
}
@misc{fds358336,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {From dismal to dominance? Law and economics and the values
of imperial science, historically contemplated},
Pages = {69-88},
Booktitle = {Law and Economics: Philosophical Issues and Fundamental
Questions},
Year = {2015},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9780415404105},
Abstract = {The history of the economic analysis of law is one of
success, whether success is measured by the field’s
explanatory power or by its professional entrenchment. On
the economics side, its journals have significant status
within the profession at large, the subject matter has its
own JEL code, and texts and courses have proliferated at the
undergraduate and graduate levels. The economic approach,
while retaining much of its original flavor, has not
remained static; rather, it has evolved to encompass a
somewhat broader perspective than evidenced in its formative
years. This broadening owes, of course, to the influence of
work being done in behavioral law and economics and the
analysis of social norms, movements that seem to be
generating a natural, and even predictable. Gary Becker is
the person perhaps most closely associated with this view of
economics and Richard Posner, in the minds of most, with the
application of these values with the legal
arena.},
Doi = {10.4324/9781315730882-5},
Key = {fds358336}
}
@article{fds345511,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Crossing the atlantic with calabresi and coase: Efficiency,
distribution, and justice at the origins of economic
analysis of law in Britain},
Journal = {History of Economic Ideas},
Volume = {23},
Number = {3},
Pages = {61-87},
Year = {2015},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {The slow diffusion of the economic analysis of law into
Europe has been much remarked upon in the literature, but
the diffusion itself has not, to this point, been made the
subject of historical study. The present paper examines the
two earliest substantive discussions of economic analysis of
law in the British literature and the somewhat unlikely
sources from which these discussions emanated. In doing so,
it highlights the possibilities and limitations that were
seen to attend the application of economic ideas to legal
thinking and points to the impediments to a broad acceptance
of the economic approach.},
Key = {fds345511}
}
@book{fds345513,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {The "subtle processes of economic reasoning": Marshall,
becker, and Theorizing about economic Man and
other-regarding behavior},
Volume = {33},
Pages = {43-73},
Year = {2015},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {The question of whether, and to what extent, Chicago price
theory is Marshallian is a large one, with many aspects. The
theory of individual behavior is one of these, and the
treatment of altruism, or, more generally, other-regarding
behavior, falls within this domain. This chapter explores
the analysis of other-regarding behavior in the work of
Alfred Marshall and Gary Becker with a view to drawing out
the similarities and differences in their respective
approaches. What emerges is sense that we find in Becker's
work important commonalities with Marshall but also
significant points of departure and that the line from
Marshall to modern Chicago is neither as direct as it is
sometimes portrayed, nor as faint as it is sometimes claimed
by Chicago critics.},
Doi = {10.1108/S0743-415420150000033010},
Key = {fds345513}
}
@article{fds361759,
Author = {Marciano, A and Medema, SG},
Title = {Market Failure in Context: Introduction},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {47},
Year = {2015},
Month = {January},
Doi = {10.1215/00182702-3130415},
Key = {fds361759}
}
@misc{fds370206,
Author = {Backhouse, RE and Medema, SG},
Title = {Walras in the Age of Marshall: An Analysis of
English-Language Journals, 1890–1939},
Pages = {69-86},
Booktitle = {Economics and other Branches – In the Shade of the Oak
Tree: Essays in Honour of Pascal Bridel},
Year = {2015},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9781848935334},
Abstract = {It is generally accepted that Léon Walras’s greatest
influence on American and British economics began only in
the 1930s. While there is a significant element of truth to
this, it begs the question of the degree to which Walras’s
work was known in the English-speaking world prior to the
1930s. Economists sometimes write as if there was a
rediscovery of Walras in the 1930s, which raises the
question of what American economists already knew about his
work and how they had responded to it. Pascal Bridel has
tackled this problem through analysing the reviews of
Walras’s books, and Walker has provided both a brief
overview of these connections and a selection of the more
recent literature illustrating Walras’s influence.1 This
essay extends this work through a systematic analysis of how
his ideas were received in the main English-language
journals.},
Doi = {10.4324/9781315653808-9},
Key = {fds370206}
}
@article{fds345514,
Author = {DeAngelo, G and Medema, SG},
Title = {Those crazy transaction costs: On the irrelevance of the
equivalence between monetary damages and specific
performance},
Journal = {European Journal of Law and Economics},
Volume = {37},
Number = {2},
Pages = {269-275},
Year = {2014},
Month = {April},
Abstract = {The Coase theorem tells us that monetary damages and
specific performance remedies for breach of contract have
identical effects when transaction costs are zero. This has
become a standard part of the literature on the economics of
contract law. This note argues that the traditional view is
somewhat misguided, as monetary damages and specific
performance remedies are unnecessary in a zero transaction
costs world. We go on to show how the presence of
transaction costs impact the decisions of contracting
parties as between the inclusion of liquidated damages
clauses in contracts and resorting to litigation that could
result in the application of either monetary damages or
specific performance remedies. © 2011 Springer
Science+Business Media, LLC.},
Doi = {10.1007/s10657-011-9285-0},
Key = {fds345514}
}
@book{fds345515,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Paul Samuelson on the history of economic analysis: Selected
essays},
Pages = {1-466},
Year = {2014},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9781107029934},
Abstract = {As one of the most famous economists of the twentieth
century, Paul Anthony Samuelson revolutionized many branches
of economic theory. As a diligent student of his
predecessors, he reconstructed their economic analyses in
the mathematical idiom he pioneered. Out of Samuelson's more
than eighty articles, essays, and memoirs, the editors of
this collection have selected seventeen. Twelve are
mathematical reconstructions of some of the most famous work
in the history of economic thought – work by David Hume,
François Quesnay, Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and others. One is
a methodological essay defending the Whig history that he
was sometimes accused of promulgating; two deal with the
achievements of Joseph Schumpeter and Denis Robertson; and
two review theoretical developments of his own time:
Keynesian economics and monopolistic competition. The
collection provides readers with a sense of the depth and
breadth of Samuelson's contributions to the study of the
history of economics.},
Key = {fds345515}
}
@article{fds345516,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Juris prudence: Calabresi's uneasy relationship with the
coase theorem},
Journal = {Law and Contemporary Problems},
Volume = {77},
Number = {2},
Pages = {65-95},
Year = {2014},
Month = {January},
Key = {fds345516}
}
@article{fds345517,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {1966 and all that: Codification, consolidation, creep, and
controversy in the early history of the coase
theorem},
Journal = {Journal of the History of Economic Thought},
Volume = {36},
Number = {3},
Pages = {271-303},
Year = {2014},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {The year 1966 was central to the history of the Coase
theorem debates, featuring the entry of the idea of a 'Coase
theorem' into economic discourse and the eruption of the
controversy over the the correctness of Coase's negotiation
result. This paper examines economists' treatments of
Coase's result in 1966 and through the remainder of the
decade, a period during which its place in the professional
discourse began to solidify and three 'camps' began to
develop around it: those who believed Coase's result correct
but of limited real-world applicability, those who found it
relevant for explaining and devising policy with regard to a
wide swath of externality-related phenomena, and those who
argued and purported to demonstrate that this result was
simply incorrect or wrong-headed on one or another grounds.
© 2014 The History of Economics Society.},
Doi = {10.1017/S1053837214000340},
Key = {fds345517}
}
@article{fds345518,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Neither misunderstood nor ignored: The early reception of
coase's wider challenge to the analysis of
externalities},
Journal = {History of Economic Ideas},
Volume = {22},
Number = {1},
Pages = {111-132},
Year = {2014},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {The 'Coase theorem' has long been the idea most commonly
associated with Ronald Coase's analysis in «The Problem of
Social Cost». Yet, Coase frequently argued late in his
career that he had been misunderstood, and that the central
message(s) of the article lay elsewhere. Though virtually
all of the discussion in decades following the publication
of «The Problem of Social Cost» focused on Coase's
negotiation result, the fact is that Coase's message was
not, at the start, misunderstood. This paper takes up a
number of the treatments of «The Problem of Social Cost»
in the years immediately following its publication to
demonstrate that Coase's emphasis on the reciprocal nature
of externalities, the importance of transaction costs, the
possibility of merger solutions, the costs associated with
state action, and the need for a comparative institutional
approach were anything but lost on these early commentators.
It was only later that the negotiation result became the
major fixation of interpreters of Coase's work. © Copyright
2014.},
Key = {fds345518}
}
@article{fds345519,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Economics and institutions lessons from the coase
theorem},
Journal = {Revue Economique},
Volume = {65},
Number = {2},
Pages = {243-261},
Year = {2014},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {The Coase theorem occupies an important place in the history
of modern economics. Its implication that institutions are
irrelevant for economic performance, though, posed great
difficulties for economists, both in their treatment of the
theorem per se and in their attempts to grapple with the
effects of property rights and transaction costs-two key
features of the institutional underpinnings of the economy.
This article explores how the Coase theorem and its
treatment by economists point to the importance of
institutions and the tensions within modern economics that
were revealed by these efforts. © Presses de Sciences
Po.},
Doi = {10.3917/reco.652.0243},
Key = {fds345519}
}
@article{fds345520,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {The curious treatment of the coase theorem in the
environmental economics literature, 1960-1979},
Journal = {Review of Environmental Economics and Policy},
Volume = {8},
Number = {1},
Pages = {39-57},
Year = {2014},
Month = {January},
Doi = {10.1093/reep/ret020},
Key = {fds345520}
}
@article{fds345521,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {The importance of being misunderstood: The Coase theorem and
the legacy of 'The Problem of Social Cost'},
Journal = {Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research},
Volume = {5},
Number = {4},
Pages = {249-253},
Year = {2013},
Month = {October},
Doi = {10.1080/19390459.2013.835122},
Key = {fds345521}
}
@misc{fds347374,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Wandering the road from pluralism to posner: The
transformation of law and economics in the twentieth
century},
Pages = {16-32},
Booktitle = {Law and Economics: A Reader},
Year = {2013},
Month = {September},
ISBN = {9780415445603},
Key = {fds347374}
}
@article{fds345522,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {On why there is no Milton Friedman today: Sui Generis, Sui
Temporis},
Journal = {Econ Journal Watch},
Volume = {10},
Number = {2},
Pages = {197-204},
Year = {2013},
Month = {May},
Abstract = {This essay responds to the question, "Why is there no Milton
Friedman today?" In doing so, it briefly examines several
aspects of Friedman's professional life that contributed to
his success in the academic, policy, and public realms as
well as the influence of the social and political context in
which Friedman lived and worked. The conclusion reached is
that we are unlikely to see another Milton Friedman-or
Friedman-like figure of any political persuasion-anytime
soon.},
Key = {fds345522}
}
@book{fds345523,
Author = {Medema, SG and Samuels, WJ},
Title = {The history of economic thought: A reader, second
edition},
Pages = {1-767},
Year = {2013},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9780415568678},
Abstract = {From the ancients to the moderns, questions of economic
theory and policy have been an important part of
intellectual and public debate, engaging the attention of
some of history's greatest minds. This book brings together
readings from more than two thousand years of writings on
economic subjects. Through these selections, the reader can
see first-hand how the great minds of past grappled with
some of the central social and economic issues of their
times and, in the process, enhanced our understanding of how
economic systems function. This collection of readings
covers the major themes that have preoccupied economic
thinkers throughout the ages, including price determination
and the underpinnings of the market system, monetary theory
and policy, international trade and finance, income
distribution, and the appropriate role for government within
the economic system. These ideas unfold, develop, and change
course over time at the hands of scholars such as Aristotle,
St. Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, François Quesnay, David
Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Robert Malthus, David Ricardo, John
Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, William Stanley Jevons, Alfred
Marshall, Irving Fisher, Thorstein Veblen, John Maynard
Keynes, Milton Friedman, and Paul Samuelson. Each reading
has been selected with a view to both enlightening the
reader as to the major contributions of the author in
question and to giving the reader a broad view of the
development of economic thought and analysis over time. This
book will be useful for students, scholars, and lay people
with an interest in the history of economic thought and the
history of ideas generally.},
Doi = {10.4324/9780203568477},
Key = {fds345523}
}
@article{fds345524,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Warren Samuels: A personal reminiscence},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {44},
Number = {3},
Pages = {389-411},
Year = {2012},
Month = {September},
Doi = {10.1215/00182702-1717230},
Key = {fds345524}
}
@article{fds345525,
Author = {Backhouse, RE and Medema, SG},
Title = {Economists and the analysis of government failure: Fallacies
in the Chicago and Virginia interpretations of Cambridge
welfare economics},
Journal = {Cambridge Journal of Economics},
Volume = {36},
Number = {4},
Pages = {981-994},
Year = {2012},
Month = {July},
Abstract = {The theory of government failure was developed as a reaction
against Pigovian welfare economics and the Cambridge
approach to economic policy analysis generally, which
ostensibly lacked a theory of governmental behaviour. We
argue that the Cambridge tradition-as reflected in the
writings of Henry Sidgwick, Alfred Marshall and A.C.
Pigou-evidences a clear sense of the potential limitations
and inefficiencies of the political process that were later
developed, albeit in a more systematic fashion, in the
government failure literature and at the same time bring out
the ways in which the Cambridge and contemporary government
failure approaches diverge, in spite of their strong
similarities. © The Authors 2012. Published by Oxford
University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political
Economy Society. All rights reserved.},
Doi = {10.1093/cje/ber047},
Key = {fds345525}
}
@article{fds345526,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Public choice and the notion of creative
communities},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {43},
Number = {1},
Pages = {225-246},
Year = {2011},
Month = {March},
Doi = {10.1215/00182702-2010-049},
Key = {fds345526}
}
@article{fds345528,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {A case of mistaken identity: George Stigler, "The Problem of
Social Cost," and the Coase theorem},
Journal = {European Journal of Law and Economics},
Volume = {31},
Number = {1},
Pages = {11-38},
Year = {2011},
Month = {February},
Abstract = {"The Problem of Social Cost" is rightly credited with
helping to launch the economic analysis of law. George
Stigler plays a central role in the professional reception
of Coase's work and, in particular, of the idea that came to
be known as the Coase theorem. While Coase's negotiation
result was taken up in the scholarly literature not long
after the publication of "The Problem of Social Cost," it
was Stigler who gave the theorem its name and introduced it
to scores of readers in The Theory of Price (1966). His
remaking of Coase's idea into a "theorem" had significant
rhetorical force, which, combined with the challenge that it
pose to received thinking about externality problems, both
lent credibility to the idea and made it a force to be
reckoned with. The present paper analyzes Stigler's various
commentaries on the Coase theorem with a view to getting at
both how Stigler understood the theorem and its import and
why he exhibited such a fascination with it over the last 30
years of his life. © 2010 Springer Science+Business Media,
LLC.},
Doi = {10.1007/s10657-010-9196-5},
Key = {fds345528}
}
@misc{fds345527,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Chicago price theory and chicago law and economics: A tale
of two transitions},
Pages = {151-179},
Booktitle = {Building Chicago Economics: New Perspectives on the History
of America's Most Powerful Economics Program},
Year = {2011},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9781107013414},
Abstract = {It is common practice to equate “law and economics” with
the Chicago School and Chicago law and economics with
Richard Posner and the economic analysis of law. Just as
common is the tendency to equate Chicago microeconomics, or
price theory, with Gary Becker, George Stigler, and the
hard-nosed rational choice approach that has extended the
economic paradigm across the social spectrum. In fact,
however, these are distinctly modern variants of what are
lengthy Chicago traditions in law and economics and price
theory. the Chicago price theory tradition is now more than
three quarters of a century old, and the law and economics
tradition is only a couple of decades younger than that.
However, Chicago price theory prior to, say, the 1960s was a
rather dif erent enterprise than that of the subsequent
period. Likewise, law and economics at Chicago has undergone
a major transformation during the same period, as pointed
out by, for example, Alain Marciano (2008) and Steven Medema
(1998, 2009b). To date, however, there has not been a
historical explanation given for this transformation in law
and economics. the position taken here is that the
transformations of price theory and law and economics are
linked – specifically, that the transformation of Chicago
law and economics evolved out of the transformation in price
theory. the first generation of Chicago law and economics
– as rel ected in the teaching and scholarship of Aaron
Director, Director’s students, and Ronald Coase – has
its foundations in the first generation of the Chicago price
theory tradition, that is, in the approach to the subject
found in the price theory courses and scholarship of Frank
Knight, Jacob Viner, and, later, Milton Friedman. the second
generation of Chicago law and economics – the economic
analysis of law – is grounded in the rational choice
theory, a form of price theory quite dif erent from the
“old” Chicago version, in spite of elements of common
lineage, as well as a very dif erent conception of
“economics,” one that involved a (then) distinctive take
on Lionel Robbins’s dei nition of the subject as “the
science which studies human behaviour as a relationship
between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses”
(1932, 15).},
Doi = {10.1017/CBO9781139004077.012},
Key = {fds345527}
}
@misc{fds352327,
Author = {Backhouse, RE and Bateman, BW and Medema, SG},
Title = {The reception of Marshall in the United States},
Pages = {59-80},
Booktitle = {The Impact of Alfred Marshall's Ideas: The Global Diffusion
of his Work},
Year = {2010},
Month = {December},
ISBN = {9781847205124},
Key = {fds352327}
}
@misc{fds345530,
Author = {Medema, S},
Title = {History of economic thought},
Pages = {139-160},
Booktitle = {The Heart of Teaching Economics: Lessons from Leading
Minds},
Year = {2010},
Month = {December},
ISBN = {9781848447905},
Key = {fds345530}
}
@misc{fds345529,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Adam Smith and the Chicago school},
Pages = {40-51},
Booktitle = {The Elgar Companion to the Chicago School of
Economics},
Year = {2010},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9781840648744},
Abstract = {Adam Smith’s discussion of the system of natural liberty,
its eff ects on the functioning of the market system, and
the resultant implications for the economic role of the
state has formed the basis for much of the subsequent
economic literature analyzing the interplay of market and
state. That there is no settled interpretation of this and
any number of other aspects of Smith’s work is clear; what
is equally clear is that Smith’s ideas have, via
particular interpretive turns, been used to support the
development of theories and frameworks for the analysis of
economic policy. This is interesting for the interpretation
given to Smith’s ideas, the uses made of them in light of
that, and how both of these factors infl uence the larger
professional (and even popular) view of Smith. The present
essay examines what may be the most fertile of these uses of
Smith in the twentieth century: that associated with the
Chicago School.},
Doi = {10.4337/9781849806664.00010},
Key = {fds345529}
}
@misc{fds345531,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Richard A. Posner},
Pages = {306-311},
Booktitle = {The Elgar Companion to the Chicago School of
Economics},
Year = {2010},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9781840648744},
Abstract = {Richard A. Posner (1939–) was born on January 11, 1939 in
New York City. He received his BA from Yale College (1959)
and his LLD from Harvard Law School (1962), where he served
as President of the Law Review. The period following his
graduation was spent in Washington, DC, fi rst clerking for
Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. and then
working in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Posner
was appointed Associate Professor of Law at Stanford in 1968
and it was there that he came into contact with Aaron
Director, who exposed him to the economic approach to
analyzing legal rules. Posner moved on to the University of
Chicago law school in 1969. Since 1981, he has served as a
Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,
including as Chief Judge from 1993 until 2000. During his
tenure on the Court, Posner has continued both to teach
regularly at Chicago and to publish at a prolific
rate.},
Doi = {10.4337/9781849806664.00034},
Key = {fds345531}
}
@misc{fds345532,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Chicago law and economics},
Pages = {160-174},
Booktitle = {The Elgar Companion to the Chicago School of
Economics},
Year = {2010},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9781840648744},
Abstract = {The field of law and economics is arguably the most
successful of economics’ various imperialistic movements,
and this success has been driven largely by scholars from
the University of Chicago and their protégés. If one
spends much time examining the current literature in the
field, including ‘surveys’ of law and economics and its
development, one comes away with the distinct impression
that the fi eld is a post-1960 phenomenon, one that dates
roughly from the founding of the Journal of Law and
Economics (JL and E) in the late 1950s and the publication
of Ronald Coase’s (1960) ‘The problem of social cost’.
In fact, of course, law and economics, conceived of as the
study of the interrelations between legal and economic
processes, is as old as economics itself. The ancient
Greeks, the scholastics, Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Henry
Sidgwick, the German Historical School, A.C. Pigou, and,
inter alia, the early American institutionalists devoted
signifi cant attention to legal–economic relationships.
Yet, the existence of this literature is noted only barely,
if at all, in contemporary legal–economic scholarship,
and, when taken note of, it is largely waved aside as
something very diff erent from (and irrelevant for)
contemporary analysis.},
Doi = {10.4337/9781849806664.00018},
Key = {fds345532}
}
@misc{fds345533,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Ronald harry coase},
Pages = {259-264},
Booktitle = {The Elgar Companion to the Chicago School of
Economics},
Year = {2010},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9781840648744},
Abstract = {Ronald Harry Coase was born on December 29, 1910 in the
London suburb of Willesden. An only child, Coase was
educated at the Kilburn Grammar School and the London School
of Economics (LSE), from which he graduated with a degree in
commerce in 1932. Interestingly, Coase did not take a single
economics course while he was at LSE, and he later suggested
that this was to his benefi t, in that it gave him ‘a
freedom in thinking about economic problems which [he] might
not otherwise have had’ (Coase 1990, p. 3). Coase is very
quick to credit Arnold Plant’s role in his intellectual
development, and says that Plant’s ‘main influence was
in bringing me to see that there were many problems
concerning business practices to which we had no
satisfactory answer’ (Coase 1982a, p. 34, see also Coase
1986). Through Plant, he says, the students came to view the
economic system as an essentially competitive one and to see
many of the business practices attributed to the forces of
monopoly as natural results of a competitive system (Kitch
1983, p. 214). As one moves through the pages of Coase’s
career, one can see clearly the profound impression that
these ideas, along with Plant’s approach of looking at
real-world problems, made upon Coase.},
Doi = {10.4337/9781849806664.00025},
Key = {fds345533}
}
@misc{fds345534,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Pigou's “prima facie case”: Market failure in theory and
practice},
Pages = {42-61},
Booktitle = {No Wealth but Life: Welfare Economics and the Welfare State
in Britain, 1880-1945},
Year = {2010},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9780521197861},
Abstract = {INTRODUCTION The idea that the pursuit of private interests
may not redound to the larger social interest has a long
history in economic thinking, but it was not until the
second half of the 19th century that this line of thought
began to coalesce into an analysis of market failure. The
first stage of this process culminated in A. C. Pigou’s
analysis of private and social net products, beginning with
his Wealth and Welfare and then, more expansively, in The
Economics of Welfare. The Economics of Welfare, in turn,
laid the foundation for the second stage: the development of
the orthodox theory of market failure in the middle third of
the 20th century. Indeed, Pigou’s work has been cited by
supporters and critics alike as the basis for a neoclassical
approach to market failures that dominated economic thinking
from the 1940s onward. The resulting advances showed the
restrictive nature of the conditions for optimality and, as
a result, the pervasiveness of market failure. With this
came demonstrations of how governmental policies could be
put in place to achieve optimality. The last third of the
century witnessed a series of challenges to this received
view, catalyzed by the Chicago and Virginia schools. The
work of James Buchanan, Ronald Coase, Milton Friedman,
Robert Lucas, George Stigler, and Gordon Tullock both
challenged the traditional view and led to a larger
reexamination by economists of the relations between state
and economy at both the micro and macro levels.},
Doi = {10.1017/CBO9780511750649.004},
Key = {fds345534}
}
@article{fds345535,
Author = {Backhouse, RE and Medema, SG},
Title = {Robbins's essay and the axiomatization of
economics},
Journal = {Journal of the History of Economic Thought},
Volume = {31},
Number = {4},
Pages = {485-499},
Year = {2009},
Month = {December},
Doi = {10.1017/S1053837209990277},
Key = {fds345535}
}
@article{fds345536,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {History by the numbers: A comment on Carlson and
diamond},
Journal = {Journal of the History of Economic Thought},
Volume = {31},
Number = {4},
Pages = {543-547},
Year = {2009},
Month = {December},
Doi = {10.1017/S1053837209990319},
Key = {fds345536}
}
@article{fds345537,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {"the history of economics is what historians of economics
do:" A reconsideration of research priorities in the history
of economic thought},
Journal = {Journal of the History of Economic Thought},
Volume = {31},
Number = {3},
Pages = {384-391},
Year = {2009},
Month = {September},
Doi = {10.1017/S1053837209990216},
Key = {fds345537}
}
@book{fds345538,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {The hesitant hand: Taming self-interest in the history of
economic ideas},
Pages = {1-230},
Year = {2009},
Month = {July},
ISBN = {9780691150000},
Abstract = {Here Christina Wolbrecht boldly demonstrates how the
Republican and Democratic parties have helped transform, and
have been transformed by, American public debate and policy
on women's rights. She begins by showing the evolution of
the positions of both parties on women's rights over the
past five decades. In the 1950s and early 1960s, Republicans
were slightly more favorable than Democrats, but by the
early 1980s, the parties had polarized sharply, with
Democrats supporting, and Republicans opposing, such
policies as the Equal Rights Amendment and abortion rights.
Wolbrecht not only traces the development of this shift in
the parties' relative positions--focusing on party
platforms, the words and actions of presidents and
presidential candidates, and the behavior of the parties'
delegations in Congress--but also seeks to explain the
realignment. The author considers the politically charged
developments that have contributed to a redefinition and
expansion of the women's rights agenda since the
1960s--including legal changes, the emergence of the modern
women's movement, and changes in patterns of employment,
fertility, and marriage. Wolbrecht explores how party
leaders reacted to these developments and adopted positions
in ways that would help expand their party's coalition.
Combined with changes in those coalitions--particularly the
rise of social conservatism within the GOP and the
affiliation of social movement groups with the Democratic
party--the result was the polarization characterizing the
parties' stances on women's rights today.},
Key = {fds345538}
}
@book{fds345539,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {The hesitant hand: Taming self-interest in the history of
economic ideas},
Year = {2009},
Month = {July},
ISBN = {9780691122960},
Abstract = {Adam Smith turned economic theory on its head in 1776 when
he declared that the pursuit of self-interest mediated by
the market itself--not by government--led, via an invisible
hand, to the greatest possible welfare for society as a
whole.The Hesitant Handexamines how subsequent economic
thinkers have challenged or reaffirmed Smith's doctrine,
some contending that society needs government to intervene
on its behalf when the marketplace falters, others arguing
that government interference ultimately benefits neither the
market nor society.Steven Medema explores what has been
perhaps the central controversy in modern economics from
Smith to today. He traces the theory of market failure from
the 1840s through the 1950s and subsequent attacks on this
view by the Chicago and Virginia schools. Medema follows the
debate from John Stuart Mill through the Cambridge welfare
tradition of Henry Sidgwick, Alfred Marshall, and A. C.
Pigou, and looks at Ronald Coase's challenge to the
Cambridge approach and the rise of critiques affirming
Smith's doctrine anew. He shows how, following the marginal
revolution, neoclassical economists, like the preclassical
theorists before Smith, believed government can mitigate the
adverse consequences of self-interested behavior, yet how
the backlash against this view, led by the Chicago and
Virginia schools, demonstrated that self-interest can also
impact government, leaving society with a choice among
imperfect alternatives.The Hesitant Handdemonstrates how
government's economic role continues to be bound up in
questions about the effects of self-interest on the greater
good. © 2009 by Princeton University Press. All Rights
Reserved.},
Key = {fds345539}
}
@article{fds345540,
Author = {Backhouse, RE and Medema, SG},
Title = {On the definition of economics},
Journal = {Journal of Economic Perspectives},
Volume = {23},
Number = {1},
Pages = {221-233},
Year = {2009},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {This feature addresses the history of economic terms and
ideas. The hope is to deepen the workaday dialogue of
economists, while perhaps also casting new light on ongoing
questions. If you have suggestions for future topics or
authors, please contact Joseph Persky, Professor of
Economics, University of Illinois, Chicago, at
'jpersky@uic.edu'.},
Doi = {10.1257/jep.23.1.221},
Key = {fds345540}
}
@article{fds345541,
Author = {Backhouse, RE and Medema, SG},
Title = {Defining economics: The Long Road to Acceptance of the
Robbins Definition},
Journal = {Economica},
Volume = {76},
Number = {SUPPL.1},
Pages = {805-820},
Year = {2009},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {Robbins' Essay gave economics a definition that came to
dominate the professional literature. This definition laid a
foundation that could be seen as justifying both the
narrowing of economic theory to the theory of constrained
maximization or rational choice and economists' ventures
into other social science fields. Though often presented as
self-evidently correct, both the definition itself and the
developments that it has been used to support were keenly
contested. This paper traces the reception, diffusion and
contesting of the Robbins definition, arguing that this
process took around three decades and that even then there
was still significant dissent. © The London School of
Economics and Political Science 2009.},
Doi = {10.1111/j.1468-0335.2009.00789.x},
Key = {fds345541}
}
@misc{fds345542,
Author = {Backhouse, RR and Bateman, BB and Medema, SS},
Title = {The reception of Marshall in the United States},
Pages = {59-80},
Booktitle = {The Impact of Alfred Marshall's Ideas: The Global Diffusion
of his Work},
Year = {2008},
Month = {December},
ISBN = {9781847205124},
Key = {fds345542}
}
@article{fds345543,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {"Losing my religion": Sidgwick, theism, and the struggle for
utilitarian ethics in economic analysis},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {40},
Number = {5},
Pages = {189-211},
Year = {2008},
Month = {December},
Abstract = {Henry Sidgwick's loss of religious faith is central to
understanding the origins of the Cambridge school of welfare
economics. The most prominent "public" manifestation of this
loss and its impact on Sidgwick's thought was his Methods of
Ethics, which was at once the capstone work of classical
utilitarianism, cementing Sidgwick's place as one of the
great philosophers of ethics during the Victorian period,
and the source of his deep-seated need for the very religion
to which he himself could no longer subscribe. Sidgwick's
studies in political economy carried this ethical
perspective into the economic realm, though the major impact
came via his influence on A. C. Pigou, whose welfare
analysis was very much a restatement of the Sidgwickian
view, but undertaken with Marshallian analytical
underpinnings. This article discusses Sidgwick's crisis of
faith and his subsequent attempt to devise an ethical basis
for social life that was divorced from religious concerns
yet consistent with his own more general theistic stance. It
also shows how the results of this search affected
Sidgwick's work in economics and, ultimately, the Cambridge
welfare tradition.},
Doi = {10.1215/00182702-2007-066},
Key = {fds345543}
}
@misc{fds345544,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {The Economic Role of Government in the History of Economic
Thought},
Pages = {428-444},
Booktitle = {A Companion to the History of Economic Thought},
Year = {2007},
Month = {December},
ISBN = {9780631225737},
Doi = {10.1002/9780470999059.ch27},
Key = {fds345544}
}
@article{fds345545,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {The hesitant hand: Mill, Sidgwick, and the evolution of the
theory of market failure},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {39},
Number = {3},
Pages = {331-358},
Year = {2007},
Month = {September},
Doi = {10.1215/00182702-2007-014},
Key = {fds345545}
}
@article{fds345546,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Sidgwick's utilitarian analysis of law: A bridge from
Bentham to Becker?},
Journal = {American Law and Economics Review},
Volume = {9},
Number = {1},
Pages = {30-47},
Year = {2007},
Month = {March},
Abstract = {Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian analysis of crime and
punishment is regularly characterized as an inspiration for
the economic analysis of law, whereas Henry Sidgwick has
been all but ignored in the discussions of the history of
law and economics. Sidgwick is well known as the godfather
of Cambridge welfare economics. Yet, as we will show, his
utilitarian analysis of issues in property, contract, tort,
and, criminal law reflects themes now associated with the
Chicago approach and advances on Bentham in multiple ways -
including through the use of marginal analysis - making him
a bridge on the road from Bentham to Becker. © The Author
2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the
American Law and Economics Association.},
Doi = {10.1093/aler/ahm008},
Key = {fds345546}
}
@book{fds345547,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Alfred Marshall Meets Law and Economics: Rationality, Norms,
and Theories as Tendency Statements},
Volume = {9},
Pages = {235-252},
Year = {2006},
Month = {October},
ISBN = {9780762313785},
Doi = {10.1016/S1529-2134(06)09009-0},
Key = {fds345547}
}
@article{fds345548,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {On "big five and little five" [4]},
Journal = {Society},
Volume = {43},
Number = {6},
Pages = {6},
Year = {2006},
Month = {September},
Doi = {10.1007/BF02698476},
Key = {fds345548}
}
@article{fds345551,
Author = {Samuels, WJ and Medema, SG},
Title = {Freeing Smith from the "Free market": On the misperception
of Adam Smith on the economic role of government},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {37},
Number = {2},
Pages = {219-226},
Year = {2005},
Month = {June},
Doi = {10.1215/00182702-37-2-219},
Key = {fds345551}
}
@article{fds345552,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {"Marginalizing" government: From la scienza delle finanze to
Wicksell},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {37},
Number = {1},
Pages = {1-25},
Year = {2005},
Month = {March},
Doi = {10.1215/00182702-37-1-1},
Key = {fds345552}
}
@misc{fds345549,
Author = {Mercuro, N and Medema, SG and Samuels, WJ},
Title = {Robert Lee Hale (1884-1969)-legal economist},
Pages = {531-544},
Booktitle = {The Elgar Companion to Law and Economics: Second
Edition},
Year = {2005},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9781845420321},
Key = {fds345549}
}
@article{fds345550,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Setting the table},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {37},
Number = {SUPPL.},
Pages = {1-9},
Year = {2005},
Month = {January},
Doi = {10.1215/00182702-37-suppl_1-1},
Key = {fds345550}
}
@article{fds345553,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Public Choice and Deviance: A Comment},
Journal = {American Journal of Economics and Sociology},
Volume = {63},
Number = {1},
Pages = {51-54},
Year = {2004},
Month = {January},
Doi = {10.1111/j.1536-7150.2004.00273.x},
Key = {fds345553}
}
@misc{fds345555,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {The government-property relation: Confessions of a classical
liberal},
Pages = {145-151},
Booktitle = {The Fundamental Interrelationships between Government and
Property},
Year = {2003},
Month = {July},
ISBN = {9780203484654},
Doi = {10.4324/9780203484654},
Key = {fds345555}
}
@book{fds345554,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {J. DANIEL HAMMOND, NORMA JEANE MORTENSON, AND AMERICAN
INSTITUTIONALISM: A VIEW FROM THE TOP ROW},
Volume = {22},
Pages = {203-210},
Year = {2003},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9780762310890},
Doi = {10.1016/S0743-4154(03)22012-5},
Key = {fds345554}
}
@article{fds345556,
Author = {Medema, SG and Samuels, WJ},
Title = {John R. Commons's "The definition of price"},
Journal = {Research in the History of Economic Thought and
Methodology},
Volume = {18},
Number = {SUPPL: PART B},
Pages = {301-308},
Year = {2000},
Month = {January},
Key = {fds345556}
}
@article{fds345557,
Author = {Medema, SG and Zerbe, RO},
Title = {Educating Alice: Lessons from the Coase theorem},
Journal = {Research in Law and Economics},
Volume = {19},
Pages = {69-112},
Year = {2000},
Month = {January},
Key = {fds345557}
}
@article{fds345558,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {23. Pearson's origins of law and economics: The economists'
new science of law, 1830-1930 and Fried's the progressive
assault on laissez faire: Robert Hale and the first law and
economics movement},
Journal = {Research in the History of Economic Thought and
Methodology},
Volume = {18},
Number = {SUPPL: PART A},
Pages = {353-364},
Year = {2000},
Month = {January},
Key = {fds345558}
}
@article{fds345559,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {"Related disciplines": The professionalization of public
choice analysis},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {32},
Number = {SUPPL.},
Pages = {322-323},
Year = {2000},
Month = {January},
Doi = {10.1215/00182702-32-suppl_1-289},
Key = {fds345559}
}
@article{fds345560,
Author = {Medema, SG and Samuels, WJ},
Title = {The economic role of government as, in part, a matter of
selective perception, sentiment and valuation: The cases of
Pigovian and Paretian welfare economics},
Journal = {American Journal of Economics and Sociology},
Volume = {59},
Number = {1},
Pages = {87-108},
Year = {2000},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {This essay identifies and explores the role of selective
perception, sentiment and valuation in the formation of
economic policy, with particular reference to the conduct of
policy-making under the aegis of Pigovian and Paretian
welfare economics. First, we identify certain background
conditions. Second, we present an argument with regard to
the economic role of government. Finally, we apply the
argument to Pigovian and Paretian welfare economic
reasoning, showing first the equivalence of Pigovian and
Paretian reasoning under particular assumptions and their
non-equivalence under more realistic conditions, and then
how the latter results give rise to selective perception,
sentiment and valuation in the formation of economic
policy.},
Doi = {10.1111/1536-7150.00015},
Key = {fds345560}
}
@article{fds345561,
Author = {Balisciano, ML and Medema, SG},
Title = {Positive science, normative man: Lionel Robbins and the
political economy of art},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {31},
Number = {SUPPL. 1},
Pages = {282-284},
Year = {1999},
Month = {January},
Doi = {10.1215/00182702-31-supplement-256},
Key = {fds345561}
}
@article{fds345562,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Symposium on the Coase Theorem: Legal Fiction: The Place of
the Coase Theorem in Law and Economics},
Journal = {Economics and Philosophy},
Volume = {15},
Number = {2},
Pages = {209-233},
Year = {1999},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {Modern law and economics received much of its impetus from
Ronald Coase's analysis in ‘The Problem of Social Cost,’
and a goodly amount of that comes from the Coase theorem,
which states that, absent transaction costs, externalities
will be efficiently resolved through bargaining. The fact
that the analysis that came to be codified in the Coase
theorem was (intentionally) an exercise in pure fiction on
Coase's part did not deter the erection of a substantial
edifice of positive and normative analysis on this
foundation, nor, for that matter, has subsequent elaboration
of Coase's intent done anything to abate the interest in the
theorem and its implications. © 1999, Cambridge University
Press. All rights reserved.},
Doi = {10.1017/S0266267100003989},
Key = {fds345562}
}
@article{fds345565,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {The trial of Homo economicus: What law and economics tells
us about the development of economic imperialism},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {29},
Number = {SUPPL.},
Pages = {140-142},
Year = {1998},
Month = {December},
Key = {fds345565}
}
@article{fds345563,
Author = {Aslanbeigui, N and Medema, SG},
Title = {Beyond the Dark Clouds: Pigou and Coase on Social
Cost},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {30},
Number = {4},
Pages = {600-625},
Year = {1998},
Month = {January},
Doi = {10.1215/00182702-30-4-601},
Key = {fds345563}
}
@article{fds345564,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Wandering the road from pluralism to posner: The
transformation of law and economics in the twentieth
century},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {30},
Number = {SUPPL. 1},
Pages = {223-224},
Year = {1998},
Month = {January},
Doi = {10.1215/00182702-30-supplement-202},
Key = {fds345564}
}
@article{fds345566,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Coase, costs, and coordination},
Journal = {Journal of Economic Issues},
Volume = {30},
Number = {2},
Pages = {571-578},
Year = {1996},
Month = {January},
Doi = {10.1080/00213624.1996.11505821},
Key = {fds345566}
}
@article{fds345567,
Author = {Formby, JP and Medema, SG and Smith, WJ},
Title = {Tax neutrality and social welfare in a comptutational
general equilibrium framework},
Journal = {Public Finance Review},
Volume = {23},
Number = {4},
Pages = {419-447},
Year = {1995},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {This article investigates the effects of distributionally
neutral tax changes on equity and efficiency using
computational general equilibrium and stochastic dominance
techniques. The authors find, for a tax increase, that the
constant-tax-share definition is preferred both in terms of
efficiency and equity for a wide range of values of the
elasticity of labor supply. For a tax decrease, the
constant-after-tax-income definition dominates. For low
elasticities of labor supply, no general welfare conclusions
can be drawn, but under reasonable assumptions the
constant-tax-share definition would be approved by a
risk-averse median voter. © 1995, Sage Publications. All
rights reserved.},
Doi = {10.1177/109114219502300401},
Key = {fds345567}
}
@article{fds345568,
Author = {MEDEMA, SG},
Title = {Hanly on Coase: A Comment},
Journal = {Journal of Applied Philosophy},
Volume = {11},
Number = {1},
Pages = {107-111},
Year = {1994},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {ABSTRACT Ken Hanly's recent article in this Journal (Vol. 9,
No. 1, 1992) takes issue with Ronald Coase's approach to
resolving problems of externalities, as set forth in his
classic paper ‘The Problem of Social Cost’. I argue that
Hanly's discussion of Coase misinterprets or inappropriately
rejects certain aspects of Coase's analysis, specifically,
with regard to the reciprocal nature of externalities and
the economic role of government. The resolution of
externality problems is presented as an issue of selective
normative choice as to whose interests are to count; neither
efficiency nor morality claims are uniquely dispositive of
the issue. Copyright © 1994, Wiley Blackwell. All rights
reserved},
Doi = {10.1111/j.1468-5930.1994.tb00095.x},
Key = {fds345568}
}
@article{fds345569,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Is there life beyond efficiency? Elements of a social law
and economics},
Journal = {Review of Social Economy},
Volume = {51},
Number = {2},
Pages = {138-153},
Year = {1993},
Month = {January},
Doi = {10.1080/00346769308616161},
Key = {fds345569}
}
@article{fds345570,
Author = {Ballard, CL and Medema, SG},
Title = {The marginal efficiency effects of taxes and subsidies in
the presence of externalities. A computational general
equilibrium approach},
Journal = {Journal of Public Economics},
Volume = {52},
Number = {2},
Pages = {199-216},
Year = {1993},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {Using 1983 data, we develop a 19-sector computational
general equilibrium model, incorporating producer-producer
externalities and producer-consumer externalities.
Simulation results indicate that when additional government
expenditure is financed by Pigouvian taxes, the marginal
cost of public funds is substantially below one. Labor,
sales, and output taxes also affect the output of the
polluting industries, and thus have indirect Pigouvian
effects which tend to reduce the associated marginal costs
of public funds. Pigouvian taxes are usually more efficient
than Pigouvian subsidies, since the tax revenue can be used
to reduce other taxes. © 1993.},
Doi = {10.1016/0047-2727(93)90020-T},
Key = {fds345570}
}
@article{fds345571,
Author = {Medema, SG},
Title = {Transactions, transaction costs, and vertical integration: A
re-examination},
Journal = {Review of Political Economy},
Volume = {4},
Number = {3},
Pages = {291-316},
Year = {1992},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {The economic analysis of the transaction has its roots in
the work of John R. Commons, and has recently been brought
to the fore in the work of the ‘new institutionalists’,
and especially in the work of Oliver E. Williamson. This
article, drawing in part on the analysis of Commons, raises
some important questions about Williamson's analysis of the
role of transaction costs, and in doing so, attempts to
further improve the relation of the theory of the
transaction to the modem economy. The implications of the
differences in these two theories of the transaction are
brought to the fore in an analysis of Williamson's theory of
vertical integration. According to Williamson, vertical
integration is the outcome of the firm's transaction-cost
minimizing response to forces such as opportunism, bounded
rationality, and information impactedness. As this paper
demonstrates, however, when one considers the transaction
theory of Commons, as well as other factors, the scope of
Williamson's analysis is seen to be excessively narrow. The
result is a more comprehensive base from which to analyse
the transactional structure, and more specifically here,
vertical integration. © Edward Arnold 1992},
Doi = {10.1080/09538259200000021},
Key = {fds345571}
}
@article{fds345572,
Author = {Samuels, WJ and Medema, SG},
Title = {Gardiner C. Means's institutional and post-Keynesian
economics},
Journal = {Review of Political Economy},
Volume = {1},
Number = {2},
Pages = {163-191},
Year = {1989},
Month = {July},
Abstract = {In this tribute to the work of Gardiner Means, we shall
argue that his influence has been on a par with that of
Keynes on economists of an unorthodox persuasion. It is
argued that his pioneering work in studying the modern
corporation as an institution that needs to be fully
understood, renders him a first-rate institutionalist.
Intriguingly, it is also suggested that his interest in the
microeconomic foundations of macroeconomic performance are
suggestive of post-Keynesian concerns. © 1989, Taylor &
Francis Group, LLC. All rights reserved.},
Doi = {10.1080/09538258900000014},
Key = {fds345572}
}