News is out in the last couple of hours of the passing of economist Ronald Coase at the age of 102. Bloomberg News explains his importance:
The Royal Swedish Academy of Science awarded Coase the 1991 Nobel in economics “for his discovery and clarification of the significance of transaction costs and property rights for the institutional structure and functioning of the economy.”
Unusual for an economist, Coase had concluded early in life that mathematics “was not to my taste.” So he built his career offering insights on the legal precepts and institutions, such as the corporation, on which the field is built. He was one of the first economists to treat the size and function of companies as a subject worthy of more than incidental attention.
Coase “is one of the most influential economists of his day,” Oliver Williamson and Sidney Winter wrote in a 1993 book on his work. “His seminal thinking has pushed economics to reconsider its primitives.” Williamson, a student of Coase, won the Nobel in economics in 2009.
We noted the importance of Coase in a post back in December, and might as well just reprint what we said then in “Coase on the Case at 102“:
Ronald Coase, the University of Chicago economist, Nobel Prize winner, and originator of the widely used and misused “Coase Theorem” (about the dynamics of property rights) is still going at the ripe young age of 102. I believe his famous essay, “The Problem of Social Cost,” remains the most-cited law review article in history, and it spawned the influential law and economics movement inside the legal academy.
Writing recently in the Harvard Business Review in an article provocatively titled “Saving Economics from the Economists,” Coase argued that much of the economics discipline today has become distant from the real world, if not in fact damaging:
Economics as currently presented in textbooks and taught in the classroom does not have much to do with business management, and still less with entrepreneurship. The degree to which economics is isolated from the ordinary business of life is extraordinary and unfortunate. . .
This separation of economics from the working economy has severely damaged both the business community and the academic discipline. Since economics offers little in the way of practical insight, managers and entrepreneurs depend on their own business acumen, personal judgment, and rules of thumb in making decisions. In times of crisis, when business leaders lose their self-confidence, they often look to political power to fill the void. Government is increasingly seen as the ultimate solution to tough economic problems, from innovation to employment.
Economics thus becomes a convenient instrument the state uses to manage the economy, rather than a tool the public turns to for enlightenment about how the economy operates. But because it is no longer firmly grounded in systematic empirical investigation of the working of the economy, it is hardly up to the task. . .
Nick Schulz: You are critical of much modern economics, saying it has been transformed “from a moral science of man creating wealth to a cold logic of choice and resource allocation.” How did this happen? Where did economics go wrong?
RC & NW: Adam Smith, the founding father of modern economics, took economics as a study of “the nature and causes of the wealth of nations.” As late as 1920, Alfred Marshall in the eighth edition of Principles of Economics kept economics as “both a study of wealth and a branch of the study of man.” Barely a dozen years later, Lionel Robbins in his Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science (1932) reoriented economics as “the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.” Unfortunately, the viewpoint of Robbins has won the day.The fundamental shift from Smith and Marshall to Robbins is to rid economics of its substance — the working of the social institutions that bind together the economic system. Afterward, economics has turned into a discipline without a subject matter, advocating itself as a study of human choices. This shift has been assisted by what Hayek (1952) criticized as the growing trend of scientism in the study of society, which took mathematical formalism as the only secure route to truth in the pursuit of knowledge. As economists become more and more interested in formalism and related technical sophistication, it becomes secondary whether the substantive questions that they choose to perfect their methods or to illustrate their theoretical models bear any resemblance to the real world economy. By and large, most of our colleagues are not bothered by the fact that what they profess is mainly “blackboard economics.”