補一補經濟學 Coase : Essays on Economics and Economists

 

I read R. H. Coase's book Essays on Economics and Economists long ago, since I've been reading George J. Stigler's Tanner Lecuture, I like to share with you some thoughts I wrote after I'v read Coase's essays. And I'll share with you my thought after I've finished Stigler's lecture later.

 

A big name as Coase,  as it is, just like F. A. Hayek in neoliberalism, and often appear in essay of Steven Cheung and 林行止, However, I've not read Coase's work before.

But I find Coase an interesting guy. As he shows in the preface of the book: He writes: My desire to publish this collection of essays is no doubt largely motivated by vanity. But as Adam Smith pointed out, characteristics of human beings which appear to us as in some degree disagreeable may nonetheless bring social benefits. I hope this will be in this case.

….

And he goes on writing, after he says that some of his essays are different from most economists, that 'I am hoping that having these essays read wil increase my market share.'

The very essay I'm interested in is Adam Smith's View of Man, and the other one on Adam Smith, named The Wealth of Nations. Because my lack of knowledge in economics. I think it's perfect to read Coase,  a Nobel Prize laureate in economics,  to introduce Smith's theory and his moral philosophy, which  I'm not familiar with and I want to know more, especially his moral theory, which is important in the history of western political philosophy.

The essays are quite easy to read. They have the quality worth praising, which a style like Smith's, (as Coase says) a style can be read with pleasure. And the English is simple, clear and amusing. And, it suits me, a reader who's knowledge of economics is limited to high school student, so well that keeps reading. (Coase critics the modern economists that they are either incapable of writing simple English or have decided that they have more to gain by concealment. P.77)

I have a point of prejudge that it's odd and not pervasive enough to use the economic theory as a method to analyze political phenomena. It almost become my stubborn belief that politics is much more than self-interest, and should be study beyond this single one perspective or assumption of economic theory.

Politics is a field of passion, compassion, ambition, calculation, seriousness and profoundness, which go beyond self-interest. You just can't explain so many political phenomena if just look at them with the glass of self-interest. Of couse, I haven't  think this question seriously and can't offer a sound argument to disagree the mainstream neo-political economics theory.

But I'm happy to find out that Coase, a  Nobel Prize laureate in economics(!), seems to share the same idea with me, at least he thinks that is 'problematical'. In the essay George J. Stigler, he comments Stigler's approach, which using utility-maximizing assumption as the tool to analyze the workings of a political system:

Just how much political behavior can be explained in this way seems to me problematical. As I watch people who are engaged in political activities, whether through voting in a parliamentary system or by taking part in political, including revolutionary, movements, supporting with enthusiasm policies which seem likely to greatly harm or even destroy their countries and perhaps themselves, I find it difficult to believe that such behavior is best described as rational utility-maximizing. However, that does not mean that in some areas, and particularly those of most interest to an economist, Stigler's approach may not have great explanatory power. And I think it does. The Swedish Academy spoke with caution about his analysis of the causes of regulation: 'it is still too early to assess its ultimate scope.' (P.206)