shoch wrote:Your view isn't share by some.
It would be a dull world if everyone agreed. Note that the reaction is not against institutional economics. I haven't heard any criticism of the award to Oliver Williamson, who has done excellent work in this area, and who has indeed influenced other many economists. Rather, the scepticism was addressed to Ms. Ostrom, who is a political scientist and has had very little impact on economics. Even Krugman says he wasn't familiar with her work.
That said, I'm not too surprised that Joe Stiglitz and Paul Krugman would take anti-Bush positions, even by proxy.
There is a large literature on different forms of ownership of enterprise, from the corporate (owned by suppliers of capital) to workers' cooperatives (owned by labour), to producers' cooperatives (owned by the suppliers of a key input or intermediate m,aterial, e.g. dairy cooperatives), to consumer cooperatives (owned by the customers). If you are really interested in alternative institutional forms, I strongly recommend Henry Hansmann, The Ownership of Enterprise
But of course Hansmann is a lawyer, and so beyond the pale. As well, perhaps he is not as critical of corporations as the proto-Nobel committee would have liked.
As to the problem of the commons, in law school I was taught property law by a Marxist (a preponderance of property law professors seem to be Marxists). His position was that the problem of the commons was not that the grazing land was in common, but rather that the catttle were private property. The solution was ovbvious -- nationalize the cattle. The farm could then be run as a collective. (I made myself very unpopular by pointing out than this had already been tried -- on a very large scale.)
Economists should not try comedy. They're much funnier when they stick to economic theory.
I dare say. But not as funny as conspiracy buffs. But YMMV.
Anyway, your posts always yield
me great pleasure. I especially like the way you include an entire quote as the URL.
The plural of anecdote is NOT data.