Lai, L W C; Ng, F W N and Yung, P (2008) The Coase theorem and a Coasian construction economics and management research agenda. Construction Management and Economics, 26(1), pp. 29-46. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
This paper seeks to construct an empirical research agenda based on transaction cost reasoning informed by the Coase Theorem. It explains why the Coase Theorem has not been well received in the area of construction economics and management, as revealed by the relevant bibliometrics; develops a transaction cost-based research agenda for this arena based on the corollaries of the invariant version and optimality version of the Coase Theorem; and maps the current research endeavours that fall into that agenda. It has been explained that the Coase Theorem was based on Coase's 1960 article, 'The problem of social cost', and is not only compatible with, but also more general than, Coase's theory of the firm offered in his 1937 paper, 'The nature of the firm'. Hence, the 'two Coases' characterization, which suggests a dichotomy pro-organization/regulation stance versus a pro-free market stance, is fallacious.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bibliometrics; coase theorem; construction economics and management; property rights; transaction cost |
| Index terms: | construction economics, research agenda, reasoning, maps, bibliometrics, theory of the firm, management research, regulation, transaction cost, nature of the firm, property rights |
| Subjects: | economic theory, research evaluation and metrics, political science, economics, research management, research design and methodology, financial analysis, spatial and geospatial analysis, cognitive psychology, real estate economics |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Information Management, Governance, Research Practice, Urban Studies, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here