Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article simulates R onald C oase's transaction cost approach to firm organizing using agent‐based modelling, and contextualizes and contrasts it with a division‐of‐labour/specialization view of the firm that C oase challenged and sought to replace. The simulation tests the firm formation process based on the different implications of transaction costs and specialization as drivers of integration, focusing especially on C oase's rejection of specialization as an explanation for integration in the firm. The results show little support for, and suggest an important shortcoming to, C oase's transaction cost theory. My findings thereby indicate a potential relationship between the specialization theory and W illiamson's T ransaction C ost E conomics, especially the latter's emphasis on co‐specialization through relationship‐specific investments, which helps shed light on TCE's significant influence in the theory of the firm literature.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Per L. Bylund (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: