The Coase Theorem Explained: Coasean Bargaining Definition, Conditions/Assumptions and Examples
Have you ever wondered how people can resolve conflicts over property rights without resorting to lawsuits or government intervention? If so, you might be interested in learning about the Coase Theorem, a legal and economic theory developed by Nobel laureate Ronald Coase.
The Coase Theorem states that when there are conflicting property rights, the parties involved can bargain or negotiate terms that will reflect the full costs and benefits of the property rights at issue, resulting in an efficient and optimal outcome, no matter who has the initial property rights, as long as the transaction costs of bargaining are negligible.
Sounds too good to be true, right? Well, there are some important conditions and assumptions that must be met for the Coase Theorem to work. Let’s take a closer look at what they are and how they affect the applicability of the Coase Theorem in the real world.
Coasean Bargaining Definition
Coasean bargaining is the process of negotiating or trading property rights between parties who have conflicting interests over the use of a scarce resource. For example, suppose there is a factory that produces goods and a farm that grows crops. The factory emits smoke that damages the crops of the farm. The factory has the property right to produce goods, but the farm has the property right to grow crops. How can they resolve this conflict?
According to the Coase Theorem, the factory and the farm can engage in Coasean bargaining, where they agree on a payment that compensates the farm for the damage caused by the smoke, or a restriction that limits the amount of smoke emitted by the factory, or a combination of both. The outcome of the bargaining will depend on the relative values of the property rights and the preferences of the parties. The Coase Theorem claims that the outcome will be efficient and optimal, meaning that it will maximize the total value of the property rights and minimize the total harm caused by the smoke.
Coase Theorem Conditions and Assumptions
The Coase Theorem sounds simple and elegant, but it relies on some strong conditions and assumptions that are often unrealistic or violated in the real world. Here are some of the most important ones:
- Zero transaction costs: Transaction costs are the costs of finding, negotiating, and enforcing a contract or agreement. For Coasean bargaining to work, these costs must be zero or negligible, meaning that the parties can easily and cheaply communicate, agree, and comply with the terms of the bargain. However, in reality, transaction costs are often positive and significant, especially when there are many parties involved, asymmetric information, legal barriers, or strategic behavior. Transaction costs can prevent or hinder the parties from reaching an efficient and optimal bargain, or even from bargaining at all.
- Perfect and complete information: The parties must have perfect and complete information about the costs and benefits of the property rights, the preferences and values of the other parties, and the possible outcomes of the bargaining. This means that there is no uncertainty, risk, or asymmetric information that can affect the bargaining process or the outcome. However, in reality, information is often imperfect and incomplete, meaning that the parties may not know or agree on the true costs and benefits of the property rights, the preferences and values of the other parties, or the possible outcomes of the bargaining. This can lead to misperceptions, disagreements, or conflicts that can prevent or hinder the parties from reaching an efficient and optimal bargain, or even from bargaining at all.
- No market power: The parties must have no market power, meaning that they cannot influence the price or quantity of the property rights by their own actions. This implies that the parties are price takers, not price makers, and that there are many buyers and sellers of the property rights. However, in reality, market power is often present, meaning that some parties may have the ability to affect the price or quantity of the property rights by their own actions. This can give them an advantage or a disadvantage in the bargaining process, or create incentives for them to behave strategically or opportunistically. This can prevent or hinder the parties from reaching an efficient and optimal bargain, or even from bargaining at all.
Coase Theorem Examples
To illustrate the Coase Theorem, let’s look at some hypothetical examples of Coasean bargaining in action.
- Example 1: Suppose there is a railroad that runs through a farmer’s land. The railroad causes sparks that occasionally set fire to the farmer’s crops. The railroad has the property right to run trains, but the farmer has the property right to grow crops. How can they resolve this conflict?
According to the Coase Theorem, the railroad and the farmer can bargain over the payment or restriction that will compensate the farmer for the damage caused by the sparks, or prevent the sparks from occurring, or both. The outcome of the bargaining will depend on the relative values of the property rights and the preferences of the parties. For example, if the value of running trains is higher than the value of growing crops, the railroad will pay the farmer a sum that is less than the damage caused by the sparks, and the farmer will accept it. If the value of growing crops is higher than the value of running trains, the farmer will pay the railroad a sum that is less than the benefit of running trains, and the railroad will accept it. If the values are equal, the parties will agree on a payment or restriction that is equal to the damage or benefit of the sparks. In any case, the outcome will be efficient and optimal, meaning that it will maximize the total value of the property rights and minimize the total harm caused by the sparks.
- Example 2: Suppose there is a lake that is used by two groups of people: fishermen and boaters. The fishermen have the property right to fish in the lake, but the boaters have the property right to boat in the lake. However, the boating activity disturbs the fish and reduces the catch of the fishermen. How can they resolve this conflict?
According to the Coase Theorem, the fishermen and the boaters can bargain over the payment or restriction that will compensate the fishermen for the loss of fish, or limit the boating activity, or both. The outcome of the bargaining will depend on the relative values of the property rights and the preferences of the parties. For example, if the value of fishing is higher than the value of boating, the boaters will pay the fishermen a sum that is less than the loss of fish, and the fishermen will accept it. If the value of boating is higher than the value of fishing, the fishermen will pay the boaters a sum that is less than the benefit of boating, and the boaters will accept it. If the values are equal, the parties will agree on a payment or restriction that is equal to the loss or benefit of the boating activity. In any case, the outcome will be efficient and optimal, meaning that it will maximize the total value of the property rights and minimize the total harm caused by the boating activity.
Conclusion
The Coase Theorem is a powerful and elegant theory that shows how property rights can be used to solve conflicts and achieve efficient and optimal outcomes through bargaining and negotiation. However, the Coase Theorem also relies on some strong conditions and assumptions that are often unrealistic or violated in the real world, such as zero transaction costs, perfect and complete information, and no market power. Therefore, the Coase Theorem is more useful as a theoretical benchmark or a thought experiment than as a practical policy tool or a realistic description of reality. Nevertheless, the Coase Theorem can still provide valuable insights and lessons for understanding and improving the allocation and distribution of property rights in various contexts and situations.
Comments
Post a Comment