Preview

Journal of Modern Competition

Advanced search

Development of theories of the firm - modern trends

EDN: XAERNR

Abstract

Deficiencies of the neoclassical interpretation of the firm and dissatisfaction with economists neo classical approach to understanding the nature of the firm in the market environment led to the appearance and development of the institutional firm concepts associated with such names as Coase, Williamson, Simons, Craps, Alchian, Demsetz, Hart, Holmstrom, Jensen, Milgrom, Meckling, Baker, Gibbons, Murphy and others.The Ronald Coase article named «The nature of the firm» and published in 1937, is constantly in the spotlight a growing number of economists who study the essence of the company in various aspects. It became the basis for the emergence in the 80s transactional theory and the theory of incomplete contracts, long enough to study identifies the key trends of the firm. That in turn led to an increase in the number of theoretical approaches that can be considered as a complement or replacement depending on which question they try to answer.In this article, in view of the existence of a fairly extensive number of works that were under the influence of the two main approaches to the theory of the firm, as well as the widespread discussion it seems reasonable to focus on the emergence of a completely new concept of the firm over the past twenty years.

About the Author

M. Agamirova
National Research University - Higher School of Economics


References

1. Alchian A., Demsetz H. Production, information costs and economic organization. American Economic Review. 1972. No. 62 (5). Р. 777-795.

2. Baker G., Gibbons R., Murphy K. J. Bringing the market inside the firm? American Economic Review. 2001. No. 91 (2). Р. 212-218.

3. Baker G., Gibbons R., Murphy K. J. Strategic Alliances: Bridges Between ‘Islands of Conscious Power. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies. 2008. No. 22. Р. 146-63.

4. Coase R. The nature of the firm. Economica. New Series. 1937. No. 4 (11). Р. 386-405.

5. Garrouste P., Saussier S. Looking for a theory of the firm: Future challenges. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 2005. No. 58 (2). Р. 178-199.

6. Gibbons R. Incentives Between Firms (and Within). Management Science. 2005. No. 51 (1). Р. 2-17.

7. Gibbons R. Four Formal (izable) Theories of the firm? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 2005. No. 58. Р. 202-247.

8. Grossman S., Hart O. The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical Integration. Journal of Political Economy. 1986. No. 94. Р. 691-719.

9. Hart O., Moore J. On the Design of Hierarchies: Coordination Versus Specialization. Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers. 1880. Harvard - Institute of Economic Research, 1999.

10. Hart O., Moore J. Contracts as Reference Points. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2008. No. 123 (1). Р. 1-48.

11. Holmstrom B. The Firm as a Subeconomy. Journal of Law. Economics and Organization. 1999. No. 15. Р. 74-102.

12. Holmstrom B., Milgrom P. Multitask Principal-Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design. Journal of Law. Economics and Organization. 1991. No. 7. Р. 24-52.

13. Holmstrom B., Roberts J. The boundaries of the firm revisited. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 1998. No. 12 (4). P. 73-94.

14. Lindbeck A., Snower D. J. Multitask Learning and the Reorganization of Work: From Tayloristic to Hollistic Organization. Journal of Labour Economics. 2000. No. 18 (3). Р. 353-376.

15. Williamson O. E. Markets and Hierarchies. N. Y., Free Press, 1975.


Review

For citations:


Agamirova M. Development of theories of the firm - modern trends. Journal of Modern Competition. 2016;10(4):5-12. EDN: XAERNR

Views: 1


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 1993-7598 (Print)
ISSN 2687-0657 (Online)