Is the Coase theorem unfalsifiable?

Our recent discussions with Glen Whitman about slavery, Haitian zombies, and the Coase Theorem has led us to think deeper about the relation between the Coase Theorem and other “legal failures.” (We consider the institution of slavery a paradigm case of a legal failure because it was the law, not free markets, that made slavery possible prior to abolition. By the way, you can find other examples (some fictional) of legal failures in our short essay “Buy or Bite?,” which also appears as Chapter 12 in the new book Economics of the Undead, which we highly recommend.)

Consider the U.S. Civil War — or the War between the States, as this terrible conflict is sometimes referred to in the South. As Paul Samuelson once noted in his short paper Some uneasiness with the Coase theorem: “the Civil War was not aborted by purchase of the slaves and setting them free.” In other words, although it would have been in the mutual interest of both abolitionists and slave-owners to negotiate a deal rather than go to war, such a Panglossian outcome or “Coasian bargain” did not occur. Dogmatic defenders of Coase’s theorem, of course, will resort to postulating the existence of “transaction costs” or market frictions preventing the parties from negotiating a mutually-beneficial deal, but doesn’t this vague and all-purpose excuse make the Coase theorem unfalsifiable in principle?

But aside from the important issue of falsification (an issue that is essential for us academics who care about intellectual honesty), we wish to make an even more important point, especially in the context of slavery. In short, what about the interests of the slaves themselves? In fairness to Glen, he actually takes the time to address this concern in one of his replies to our initial critique of his post on Haitian zombies. Our point here is that most slaves were simply unable to purchase their own freedom as a matter of common law (i.e. slaves lacked the “legal capacity” to enter into contracts), so how can we talk about the Coase theorem when one side to a possible transaction is prevented from bargaining at all? More importantly, notice that our focus is not on slave-owners or the Civil War; our focus is on the slaves themselves and their unjust plight created by the law.

Next time, let’s negotiate.

Posted in Economics, History, Law | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Does the institution of slavery refute the Coase Theorem?

We think it does … because slaves by definition are unable to bargain for their freedom. Our colleague and good friend Glen Whitman says it does not … read his reasons and our objections to his argument in the comments section to this fascinating blog post on “Haitian zombies and slave economics.” (Recall that the Coase Theorem predicts that an economic asset will be allocated to its most valuable use regardless of who initially owns that asset, provided that market frictions or “transaction costs” are low — i.e. provided that the owner of the asset is able to bargain with potential buyers who want the asset.) Who is right? 

An efficient auction?

Posted in Economics, Law, Zombies | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Haitian Zombies and Slave Economics

We are reblogging this fascinating post by Glen Whitman on “Haitian Zombies and Slave Economics” because we respectfully disagree with Professor Whitman’s application of the Coase Theorem to the institution of slavery. (First, though, we must confess that we are fascinated by Coase’s theorem — see our paper “Clones and the Coase Theorem” where we apply Coase’s ideas to the film Blade Runner — spoiler alert: we argue that the source of the replicants’ violence in Blade Runner is Dr. Tyrell’s monopoly over the production of replicants.) But in the case of colonial-era slavery, we can’t say whether or not slavery is efficient since slaves do not have the option of purchasing their manumission on a voluntary basis. In other words, we tend to equate the Coase Theorem with “Coasian bargaining” to an efficient result, but by definition no direct bargaining is going on between slaves and slave-owners …

Glen Whitman's avatarEconomics of the Undead

This article on Haitian zombies, which includes a history of attempts to explain their existence in scientific terms, reminds us that zombie folklore is historically inseparable from slavery.  Haitian zombies were created not by a virus, but by a sorcerer (bokor) whose black magic created undead laborers who would work indefinitely for free.  This suggests that zombie labor might be analyzed in the same manner as slave labor.

In a justly famous (or infamous) book titled Time on the Cross, economists Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman made the controversial claim that slavery in the American South was actually an efficient economic institution.  It’s worth pointing out that “efficient” isn’t necessarily the same as “moral”; their argument was purely economic, not ethical.  Nevertheless, the book unsurprisingly generated a great deal of criticism, from economists and others.

I can’t begin to summarize the whole debate initiated by Time…

View original post 654 more words

Posted in Economics, Law, Uncategorized, Zombies | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

A reverse-Facebook experiment

Our friends at Facebook recently received a lot of bad press for conducting a masssive secret psych experiment on 700,000 of its users without their consent. (Update: The journal that published Facebook’s research published a pusillanimous Expression of Concern but did not impose any sanctions on the authors of the research report.) One Facebook user, however, recently conducted a reverse-Facebook experiment by “liking” everything he saw on his Facebook feed:

I liked everything. Or at least I did, for 48 hours. Literally everything Facebook sent my way, I liked—even if I hated it. I decided to embark on a campaign of conscious liking, to see how it would affect what Facebook showed me. I know this sounds like a stunt (and it was) but it was also genuinely just an open-ended experiment. I wasn’t sure how long I’d keep it up (48 hours was all I could stand) or what I’d learn (possibly nothing.)

Is Mat Honan, the Facebook user who concocted this diabolical reverse-Facebook experiment, a mad genius? What would happen to Mark Zuckerberg’s vaunted algorithms if everyone with a Facebook account did this for 24 hours? (Thanks to digg for the pointer.)

Define “consent.”

Posted in Current Affairs, Deception, Web/Tech | Tagged | 1 Comment

Law’s dirty little secret …

Michelle N. Meyer, an academic fellow of bioethics and biotechnology at Harvard Law School, recently brought to our attention this fascinating blog post titled “Leveling Up,” which was originally written by law professor Christian Turner. She helpfully describes various levels of legal analysis as follows (emphasis added by us):

Level 0: The outcome of this dispute should be O.

Level 1: The outcome of this dispute should be O because of rule R …

Level 2: Rule R should determine the outcome of this dispute because of principle P (e.g., efficiency; fairness; market failure) that justifies rule R.

Level 3: This dispute is appropriately resolved (i.e., the choosing of R and P should be done) by institution I (e.g., trial court, appellate court, legislature, agency, the people via referendum).

Level 4: Institution I is the appropriate entity to resolve these types of disputes because of the theory of institutional choice T (e.g., comparative institutional competence to apply principle P and/or develop its informational inputs; separation of powers; legitimacy of decision-making by (un)elected decision-makers).

Notice, however, that in law there are rarely any right answers at any of these levels of legal analysis, especially levels 2, 3, and 4. Principles, for example, are always up for grabs in law, and there are no real clear-cut rules for demarcating legislative and judicial spheres of influence. (Level 0 is not even a method of “analysis” but rather a type of empty argument based on a mere conclusory assertion.) Even level 1 often produces contradictory legal conclusions, especially when the applicable rule is broad, unclear, or “open-textured” (to borrow HLA Hart’s famous phrase). What does this say about the study of law and legal analysis generally? Is legal analysis more a matter of aesthetics or politics than it is of logic?

What’s yours?

Posted in Law | Tagged | 1 Comment

Fair or foul?

According to our friends at ESPN, a federal judge in Northern California has ruled that the NCAA can’t prevent college athletes from selling the rights to their names. Judge Claudia Wilken, in a landmark 99-page decision, has ruled in favor of former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon and 19 other former student-athletes who sued the NCAA in federal court, claiming the NCAA conspired with universities and athletic conferences to block college athletes from getting a share of the revenues generated from the use of their images in television broadcasts and video games. In addition, the judge issued an injunction that allows some college athletes to have monies generated by the sale of television rights put into a trust fund on their behalf. Our good friend and former colleague Marc Edelman has done extensive research in this area (check out his SSRN homepage here and his Twitter feed here), so we can’t wait to hear his take on the recent ruling in the O’Bannon case in the days and weeks ahead. Addendum #1: According to Kevin Trahan, Judge Wilken’s “landmark” ruling may not be as bad for the NCAA at it appears. Addendum #2: In any case, the NCAA has announced that it will appeal Judge Wilken’s ruling.

Please don’t sue us.

Posted in Law, Sports | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Extra points

In today’s league, the specialization of NFL kickers means that missing an extra point is a formality gone terribly awry, like French-kissing the pope’s ring or holding the door open for someone to an empty elevator shaft.

That remarkable sentence is from Jason Bailey’s thoughtful essay about the extra-point play in American football. (Thanks digg for the pointer.) Mr Bailey reports that professional NFL football kickers have made 98.8% of their 20-yard extra-point attempts since 1999 (the earliest season that these data are available in Pro-Football Reference’s Play Index), and he then discusses different suggestions for making the extra-point play more exciting. Considering that almost 99% of extra-point attempts are successful, why hasn’t the NFL done this already?

Posted in Rules, Sports | Tagged | Leave a comment

Happy fourth anniversary, Retraction Watch

Hey, kids, can you guess the frequency level of fraud, deceit, and general bullshit in science and academia generally? Thanks to the excellent work of our friends at “Retraction Watch” we now know by name who some of the worst academic offenders are. (Social psychologists are an especially pathetic bunch.) Happy Birthday “Retraction Watch”!

Ivan Oransky's avatarRetraction Watch

logoYesterday was our fourth birthday. We published our first post, “Why write a blog about retractions?” on August 3, 2010, and the anniversary seems as good a time as any to review where we’ve been.

Here were some highlights of the past twelve months:

View original post 228 more words

Posted in Academia, Science, Truth | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Why doesn’t the Coase Theorem work in Gaza?

The “Coase Theorem” is a beautiful prediction or simple model from the world of academic economics that does not always hold up in the real world. (Look it up.) (Bonus link: check out our related research on this topic “Does the Prisoner’s Dilemma refute the Coase Theorem?” Spoiler alert: yes.) In theory, for example, the Coase Theorem should apply to the ongoing conflict in Palestine, since “transaction costs” between the leaders of Israel and the leaders of the Hamas movement in the Gaza Strip are low (after all, there are only two major parties to the negotiation), and since both parties would benefit from a peaceful resolution of their differences. Yet, there is war, and even negotiating a humanitarian cease-fire has proven elusive. In any case, isn’t this a problem of a reciprocal nature, to borrow the late Ronald Coase’s apt phrase? Or in the words of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as quoted by Jonah Goldberg in this excellent essay, “Here’s the difference between us (the IDF and Hamas). “We’re using missile defense to protect our civilians, and they’re using their civilians to protect their missiles.

Posted in Current Affairs, Economics, Game Theory | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Will LeBron win another NBA championship?

Put another way, if you had to wager your money on this question, would you bet on the Cleveland Cavaliers, or would you bet the field? (Yeah, that’s what we thought.) By the way, while we’re on the subject of #23, what’s up with his crazy no-carb diet? After all, aren’t low-carb diets terrible for athletes?

Posted in Bayesian Reasoning, Science, Sports | Tagged | Leave a comment