Economics Faculty Database
Economics
Arts & Sciences
Duke University

 HOME > Arts & Sciences > Economics > Faculty    Search Help Login pdf version printable version 

Publications of Steven G. Medema    :chronological  alphabetical  combined listing:

%% Books   
@book{fds345508,
   Author = {Irwin, DA and Medema, SG},
   Title = {Jacob Viner: Lectures in economics 301},
   Pages = {1-159},
   Year = {2017},
   Month = {January},
   ISBN = {9781412851664},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203788110},
   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}
}

@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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0743-415420150000033010},
   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}
}

@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}
}

@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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203568477},
   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}
}

@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}
}

@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 = {0762313781},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1529-2134(06)09009-0},
   Doi = {10.1016/S1529-2134(06)09009-0},
   Key = {fds345547}
}

@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 = {December},
   ISBN = {0762310898},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0743-4154(03)22012-5},
   Doi = {10.1016/S0743-4154(03)22012-5},
   Key = {fds345554}
}


%% Journal Articles   
@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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/JEL.20191060},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpaa011},
   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{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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S105383721900018X},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/oeconomia.7424},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/oeconomia.5784},
   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}
}

@article{fds349169,
   Author = {Medema, SG},
   Title = {Economic rebel in retrospect},
   Journal = {Journal of Economic Methodology},
   Year = {2015},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2014.973751},
   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}
}

@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 = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S174413741400023X},
   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{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}
}

@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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10657-011-9285-0},
   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}
}

@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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1053837214000340},
   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 Économique},
   Volume = {65},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {243-261},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/reco.652.0243},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/reep/ret020},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19390459.2013.835122},
   Doi = {10.1080/19390459.2013.835122},
   Key = {fds345521}
}

@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}
}

@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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00182702-1717230},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cje/ber047},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00182702-2010-049},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10657-010-9196-5},
   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}
}

@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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1053837209990277},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1053837209990319},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1053837209990216},
   Doi = {10.1017/S1053837209990216},
   Key = {fds345537}
}

@article{fds345540,
   Author = {Backhouse, RE and Medema, SG},
   Title = {On the definition of economics},
   Journal = {The Journal of Economic Perspectives : a Journal of the
             American Economic Association},
   Volume = {23},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {221-233},
   Year = {2009},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.23.1.221},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2009.00789.x},
   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}
}

@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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00182702-2007-066},
   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}
}

@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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00182702-2007-014},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahm008},
   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}
}

@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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02698476},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00182702-37-2-219},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00182702-37-1-1},
   Doi = {10.1215/00182702-37-1-1},
   Key = {fds345552}
}

@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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00182702-37-suppl_1-1},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2004.00273.x},
   Doi = {10.1111/j.1536-7150.2004.00273.x},
   Key = {fds345553}
}

@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 = {December},
   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 = {December},
   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 = {December},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00182702-32-suppl_1-289},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1536-7150.00015},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00182702-31-supplement-256},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266267100003989},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00182702-30-4-601},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00182702-30-supplement-202},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00213624.1996.11505821},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109114219502300401},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.1994.tb00095.x},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00346769308616161},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(93)90020-T},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09538259200000021},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09538258900000014},
   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}
}


%% Chapters in Books   
@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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53493-4_10},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315653808},
   Doi = {10.4324/9781315653808},
   Key = {fds345510}
}

@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}
}

@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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004077.012},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781849806664.00010},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781849806664.00034},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781849806664.00018},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781849806664.00025},
   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},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750649.004},
   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}
}

@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}
}

@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 = {0631225730},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470999059.ch27},
   Doi = {10.1002/9780470999059.ch27},
   Key = {fds345544}
}

@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}
}

@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 = {0203484657},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203484654},
   Doi = {10.4324/9780203484654},
   Key = {fds345555}
}


Duke University * Arts & Sciences * Economics * Faculty * Research * Staff * Master's * Ph.D. * Reload * Login