Pigou vs Coase, as refereed by Demsetz

This is a good summary of the Pigou vs. Coase debate on externalities. I have one comment: That the author should have brought Hayek into the picture. After all, the piece was published in 1996. What follows is a kind of executive summary.

Demsetz sees the debate on externality as one between two ideals: An ideal state (with perfect information) and an ideal market (also with perfect information and zero transaction cost). Taken to the limit, both models do not generally produce identical solutions. It is well known that the initial distribution of wealth and income affects market outcomes. Change that distribution and the economy rests somewhere else. With Pigovian state intervention, one also needs to factor in the initial distribution of wealth and income as a determinant of political process. Still, it is reasonable to imagine that both models arrive at the same end-point if they started with the same initial conditions.

Demsetz then concludes, based only on theoretical considerations, that the choice between the two models is one determined by preferences for freedom and the final (and/or initial) distribution of incomes and wealth.

Once we depart from the ideal to actual governments and markets, the choice between the two solutions would then have to take into account how much information there is (available) in the competing models, and how well they would reduce transaction cost. Here, Hayek would pronounce in favor of Coase, if only because Hayek believes that the market is more capable of ‘discovering’ such phenomena as efficient technologies and consumer preferences. Transaction cost can be seen as another form of externality, so we start to run the risk of arriving at a proverbial slippery slope.

Nonetheless, Demsetz is essentially right. Transaction cost is not at the kernel of Coase; and neither did Pigou ignore transaction cost. What was being debated was who should have the property rights to the externality, a question that economists usually avoid but one that Coase faced head on.

Why we should believe in Climate Change

Climate change as religion

Religion is about God, and also about heaven or hell.  The definition could be stretched to one where religion’s concerns apply to “long after we’re gone” and when we’re not quite sure what will happen then.  Here’s where Al Gore and his merry band of alarmists come in with their Inconvenient Truth that the world is warming.  With the supposed dire consequences in the very long run, we’d better do something about it.  That something is reducing carbon emissions that produce the greenhouse effect, as any grade school science teacher will tell your kid.  The science is that the greenhouse prevents the heat from the sun from escaping earth.  And while what follows does not dispute this scientific finding, I see the debate as a matter of religion broadly defined.  Those who would like to reduce carbon emissions believe in Climate Change as a religion, and those on the other side believe that the effects of global warming, if it exists, are not quite for certain.

Continue reading “Why we should believe in Climate Change”

Ronald Coase on global warming

Railroads used to spark

Global warming is an issue that resurrects that old debate between Ronald Coase and A. C. Pigou.

Let me accept that carbon use induces global warming. I’m not so sure about this, but for discussion let’s take this as given.

Warming as externality

One way to look at the issue is to consider that warming, like pollution, is an externality.  Ronald Coase’s solution is to give property rights to the use of carbon (either to the one who likes it cold, or to the one who likes it hot).  Coase demonstrated that the efficient solution is the same regardless of who gets the property right, but of course the distribution of wealth differs.  If you give the right to the one who likes it hot, the one who wants it cold has to pay; and vice versa.

Continue reading “Ronald Coase on global warming”