DOCSLIB.ORG

The Case Against Copyright: a Comparative Institutional Analysis of Intellectual Property Regimes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Case Against Copyright: a Comparative Institutional Analysis of Intellectual Property Regimes GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2004 The Case Against Copyright: A Comparative Institutional Analysis of Intellectual Property Regimes F. Scott Kieff George Washington University Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kieff, F. Scott, "The Case Against Copyright: A Comparative Institutional Analysis of Intellectual Property Regimes" (2004). GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works. 561. https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/561 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. (Working Draft) THE CASE AGAINST COPYRIGHT: A COMPARATIVE INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGIMES F. SCott KiEff * © 2004. F. Scott Kieff. All Rights Reserved. Abstract Contemporary debates over intellectual property (“IP”) generally evidence positions that appear to line up at opposite ends of the same axis, with one side arguing for more rights for IP owners under each major regime – patent, trademark, and copyright – and the other side arguing for fewer. Approaching from what some may see as a “more” IP view, this paper offers the counterintuitive suggestion to consider abolishing one of these IP regimes – copyright, at least with respect to the entertainment industry, which represents one of that regime’s most commercially significant users. This realization is in fact consistent with the underlying view because the view is not accurately seen as even being directed to the “more” or “less” debate; and instead is focused on means as much as ends. In keeping with this means-directed approach, the paper provides the first comprehensive analysis of IP regimes using the set of tools from the field of new institutional economics. In so doing the paper offers the first normative case for IP that connects the path breaking literature on the theory of property rights generally with the seminal theories of the firm, transaction costs, * The author is Associate Professor and 2003-04 Israel Treiman Faculty Research Fellow at Washington University School of Law and 2003-04 & 2004-05 W. Glenn Campbell & Rita Ricardo-Campbell National FEllow and Robert ECkles Swain National Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution; and, at the timE this article was first drafted, hE was 2001-02 & 2002-03 John M. Olin SEnior REsearch Fellow in Law, EconomiCs, and Business at Harvard Law School. The author gratEfully aCknowledgEs financial support from the Progress & Freedom Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Hoover Institution, and Washington University School of Law, as wEll as intellectual contributions from participants in the conferences “Promoting Markets in CrEativity: Copyright in the Internet Age” hEld JunE 10, 2003 in Washington, D.C., jointly sponsored by the Progress & Freedom Foundation and the Tech CEnter at GEorgE Mason University School of Law, and “Works-in-ProgrEss in Intellectual Property Colloquium” hEld at Tulane University SChool of Law on OCtober 17-18, 2003, and at Wolfson CollEge, Cambridge UnivErsity, June 28, 2004, in addition to more detailEd comments provided by Michael Abramowicz, William Adkinson, Gregory Aharonian, Terry AndErson, Kenneth Arrow, John Barton, Ronald CoasE, Richard Epstein, Milton FriEdman, WEndy Gordon, Steve Haber, Paul Heald, Edmund Kitch, BruCe Kobayashi, Mark LEmley, Larry LEssig, Stanley Liebowitz, Glynn Lunney, Julia Mahoney, CharlEs MCManis, Michael MEurer, Adam Mosoff, Tom NaChbar, Pauline Newman, Douglass North, Bruce Owen, Troy ParEdEs, Mitch Polinsky, Randall RadEr, Steve Shavell, HEnry Smith, Polk Wagner, and John Witherspoon. JEL Classifications: A12, B15, B25, D23, D29, D61, K11, K20, K29, K39, O31, O33, O34. Correspondence may be sent to [email protected] (pErmanent address). (Printed 10/5/2004) KIEFF NIE & THE CASE AGAINST COPYRIGHT 2 and agency costs. Underlying this paper’s stark departure from both the “more” and “less” bodies of the IP literature is the realization that the institutional structure of the present copyright regime may make the social costs of the present copyright regime too high, for at least the entertainment industry, while at the same time preventing it from providing the coordination benefits an IP regime normatively should provide. Building on this, the paper begins to explore for the first time whether the recent patent and trademark regimes have institutional structures that may allow them to provide these coordination benefits better, and with lower social costs. The paper thereby suggests how the patent and trademark regimes of yesterday may obsolete the copyright system of today. Table of Contents I. Introduction........................................................................................................3 II. A Review of the Problems Explored through NIE .............................................9 A. Problems at the Individual Level ...............................................................12 1. Incentives .............................................................................................12 2. Rent Seeking and Rent Dissipation......................................................14 3. Information Costs ................................................................................16 4. Behavioralism ......................................................................................18 B. Problems at the Inter-Individual Level......................................................22 1. Externalities .........................................................................................22 2. Transaction Costs ................................................................................26 3. Agency Costs........................................................................................30 4. Coordination and Private Ordering ....................................................33 C. Problems at the Institutional Level............................................................37 1. Laws, Norms, and Problems of Enforceability ....................................38 2. Markets and Market Failures ..............................................................41 (a) Ex Ante vs. Ex Post and Dynamic vs. Static Efficiency ............... 42 (b) Monopoly Effects .......................................................................... 45 3. Government, Government Failures, and Public Choice......................47 4. Property Rights and Common Tragedies.............................................54 (a) Public Goods and Commons......................................................... 55 (b) Anticommons, Permit Thickets, and License Raj.......................... 60 D. Wrapping-up Problems Explored through NIE .........................................64 III. Lessons from NIE for Law & Economic Theories of IP ..................................65 A. Problems of Reward Theories and the Incentive Access Paradigm ..........66 1. Imprudent Incentives............................................................................68 2. Ineffective Access.................................................................................71 3. Allocation and Screening.....................................................................76 KIEFF NIE & THE CASE AGAINST COPYRIGHT 3 B. Problems of Prospect and Rent Dissipation Theories ...............................78 1. Extent of the Rent Dissipation..............................................................78 2. Effectiveness of the Tools for Mitigating Dissipation..........................81 C. Commercialization Theory, Coordination, and Social Costs ....................83 1. Overview of the Theory........................................................................84 2. Common Misperceptions on the Theory ..............................................86 3. Some Particularly Salient NIE Lessons on Social Costs for IP...........91 (a) Monopoly Effects .......................................................................... 92 (b) Transaction Costs, Behavioralism, and Anticommons ................. 94 (c) Public Choice.............................................................................. 100 IV. Implications from NIE for Comparing IP Regimes .......................................103 A. The Basics of Positive Law IP Regimes...................................................105 B. Beginning the Case against Copyright ....................................................114 V. Conclusion .....................................................................................................117 I. INTRODUCTION This paper offers the first comprehensive analysis of IP theory and ComparativE outlinE of IP rEgimEs using thE sEt of analytiCal tools from thE fiEld called new institutional economics (“NIE”), whiCh is oftEn associated with the path-breaking work on institutions by Robert Fogel and Douglass North, for which they were awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize in economics, as well as the path- breaking work on transaction costs, agency costs, and the theory of the firm by Ronald Coase, for which he was awarded the 1991 Nobel Prize in economics.1 In so doing, the paper offers the first theory of IP that connECts thE litEraturEs on these seminal theories of the firm, agency costs,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Topics in Economic History Ran Abramitzky Bergen, August 2019
    TOPICS IN ECONOMIC HISTORY RAN ABRAMITZKY BERGEN, AUGUST 2019 Instructor: Professor Ran Abramitzky, [email protected], Stanford University. Class time and location: TBD Course Description: Topics in Economic History: covers topics in Economic History from the Middle Ages to the twentieth century (but does not cover detailed economic history of particular European countries). Topics include competing hypotheses in explaining long term trends in economic growth and cross-country differences in long-term economic growth; the diffusion of knowledge; the formation, function, and persistence of institutions and organizations; the role of institutions and organizations (for example, apprenticeship, partnerships, cooperatives, social networks, share cropping, and communes) as solutions to contractual problems; the causes and consequences of income inequality; the economics of migration; the changing economic role of the family. The course will highlight the use of economic theory in guiding hypothesis testing, as well as the construction of new datasets and the execution of empirical analysis. A main goal of the course is to involve students in research, from identifying and posing interesting research questions in economic history and in other applied economic fields, to presenting these ideas. The course will give opportunity for students to give a 15-minutes presentation of a recent job market paper in economic history. If you are interested to present, please email me with your choice of a paper from the list of recent job market papers below. Papers will be assigned based on a first comes first served basis, so pick your paper early. You are not expected to read in advance of class, but you will benefit more from the class if you read in advance some papers from the reading list.
    [Show full text]
  • JOI Volume 5 Issue 2 Cover and Front Matter
    17441374_5-2.qxd 6/25/09 4:00 PM Page 1 Journal of ISSN 1744-1374 Economics Institutional of Journal Institutional Journal of Economics vol 5 • no 2 • AUGUST 2009 Institutional Economics Contents 137 Knowledge and the theory of institutional change vol 5 • no 2 • AUGUST 2009 Thráinn Eggertsson 151 Comparing theories of institutional change Chris Kingston and Gonzalo Caballero 181 Institutions and US regional development: a study of Massachusetts and Virginia Sukkoo Kim 207 Does institutional quality affect capital mobility? Evidence from developing countries Javed Younas 225 Comparative urban institutions and intertemporal externality: a revisit of the 5 • no 2 AUGUSTvol 2009 Coase conjecture Feng Deng Fragment 251 Self-deceit and self-serving bias: Adam Smith on ‘General Rules’ Elias L. Khalil Cambridge Journals Online For further information about this journal please go to the journal website at: journals.cambridge.org/joi Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.35.76, on 28 Sep 2021 at 20:26:04, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137409001258 17441374_5-2.qxd 6/25/09 4:00 PM Page 2 Journal of Institutional Economics Journal of Institutional Economics editors statement of aims submission of articles subscriptions copying issn Institutions are the stuff of social and institutions and organizations. The Journal of Institutional Economics ( Geoffrey M. Hodgson (Editor-in-Chief) Submission should be made electronically to This journal is registered with the Copyright economic life. The importance of The Journal of Institutional Economics is an 1744-1374) is published three times a year, The Business School the Editor-in-Chief, Geoffrey Hodgson, via Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, understanding the role of institutions in interdisciplinary journal that will be of interest April, August and December.
    [Show full text]
  • State Failure in Developing Countries and Strategies of Institutional Reform
    State Failure in Developing Countries and Strategies of Institutional Reform Mushtaq H. Khan Department of Economics, SOAS, University of London. Abstract: The analysis of state failure and the policy debate have been driven by two very different underlying views of what the state does. The first, which we call the “service- delivery” view says the role of the state is to provide law and order, stable property rights, key public goods and welfarist redistributions. In failing to provide these, state failure contributes to economic under-performance and poverty. State failure of this type is in turn related to an inter-dependent constellation of governance failures including corruption and rent-seeking, distortions in markets and the absence of democracy. All of these need to be addressed to focus the state on its core service-delivery tasks. The second locates the developing country state in the context of “social transformation”: the dramatic transition these countries are going through as traditional production systems collapse and a capitalist economy begins to emerge. Dynamic transformation states have heavily intervened in property rights and devised rent-management systems to accelerate the capitalist transition and the acquisition of new technologies. State failure according to this view has been driven by the lack of institutional capacities in these respects, and more importantly, the incompatibility of institutional capacities with pre-existing distributions of power. An examination of the econometric data and historical evidence raises serious doubts as to whether the governance reforms suggested by the first view can improve growth, while the need for reforms identified by the second view are much better supported.
    [Show full text]
  • The Death of the Firm
    Article The Death of the Firm June Carbone† & Nancy Levit†† INTRODUCTION A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people (including shareholders, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are ex- tended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people.1 In the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lob- by—and more generally in corporate and employment law—the firm as entity is disappearing as a unit of legal analysis. We use the term “firm” in this Article in the sense that Ronald Coase did to describe a form of business organization that or- ders the production of goods and services through use of a sys- tem internal to the enterprise rather than through the use of independent contractors.2 The idea of an “entity” in this sense † Robina Chair in Law, Science and Technology, University of Minneso- ta Law School. †† Curators’ and Edward D. Ellison Professor of Law, University of Mis- souri – Kansas City School of Law. We thank William K. Black, Margaret F. Brinig, Naomi Cahn, Paul Callister, Mary Ann Case, Lynne Dallas, Robert Downs, Max Eichner, Martha Fineman, Barb Glesner Fines, Claire Hill, Brett McDonnell, Amy Monahan, Charles O’Kelley, Hari Osofsky, Irma Russell, Dan Schwarcz, Lynn Stout, and Erik P.M. Vermeulen for their helpful comments on drafts of this Article and Tracy Shoberg and Shiveta Vaid for their research support.
    [Show full text]
  • Mumbai Law and Economics of Institutions
    Instructor: Jayati Sarkar email: [email protected] skype id: jayati.sarkar13 LAW AND ECONOMICS OF INSTITUTIONS EMLE Third Term: April – June 2020 Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, INDIA Course Description This course is designed to expose the student to fundamental theoretical perspectives and empirical research that have developed over the years to study the emergence and functions of institutions, with special emphasis placed on law as an institution. Insights gained in the course will be helpful in understanding the role of institutions in development, and in analysing the process of economic change. The course is divided into three main sections, namely (i) why study institutions matter (ii) theoretical perspectives in institutional economics, and (iii) how institutions matter. Topics covered under these sections include how social, political and legal institutions impact economic development, bounded rationality and institutions, the function of institutions in mitigating collective action problems, rent seeking, interest groups and policy formulation, role of institutions in reduction of transaction costs and the role of rules and norms in coordinating and protecting institutions. Course Requirement In view of the Covid 19 pandemic, the course this year will be in the form of self study with directed readings as specified in this reading list. Soft copies of all readings in this list will be provided to you.. Power point presentations of lectures that go with the readings will also be sent to you on pre-specified dates. There will be 12 such power points presentations to be covered over a span of four weeks. In these four weeks, we will meet online via Skype every Tuesday at a mutually convenient time to discuss any questions that you may have on the lecture notes and readings.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction Robert Gibbons and John Roberts
    Introduction Robert Gibbons and John Roberts Organizational economics involves the use of economic logic and methods to understand the existence, nature, design, and performance of organizations, especially managed ones. As this handbook documents, economists working on organizational issues have now generated a large volume of exciting research, both theoretical and empirical. However, organizational economics is not yet a fully recognized field in economics—for example, it has no JournalofEconomic Literature classification number, and few doctoral programs offer courses in it. The intent of this handbook is to make the existing research in organizational economics more accessible to economists and thereby to promote further research and teaching in the field. The Origins of Organizational Economics As Kenneth Arrow (1974: 33) put it, “organizations are a means of achieving the benefits of collective action in situations where the price system fails,” thus including not only business firms but also consortia, unions, legislatures, agencies, schools, churches, social movements, and beyond. All organizations, Arrow (1974: 26) argued, share “the need for collective action and the allocation of resources through nonmarket methods,” suggesting a range of possible structures and processes for decisionmaking in organizations, including dictatorship, coalitions, committees, and much more. Within Arrow’s broad view of the possible purposes and designs of organizations, many distinguished economists can be seen as having addressed organizational issues
    [Show full text]
  • Are We There Yet? IZA DP No
    IZA DP No. 6934 Are We There Yet? Time for Checks and Balances on New Institutionalism Murat Iyigun October 2012 DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit Institute for the Study of Labor Are We There Yet? Time for Checks and Balances on New Institutionalism Murat Iyigun University of Colorado and IZA Discussion Paper No. 6934 October 2012 IZA P.O. Box 7240 53072 Bonn Germany Phone: +49-228-3894-0 Fax: +49-228-3894-180 E-mail: [email protected] Any opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but the institute itself takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn is a local and virtual international research center and a place of communication between science, politics and business. IZA is an independent nonprofit organization supported by Deutsche Post Foundation. The center is associated with the University of Bonn and offers a stimulating research environment through its international network, workshops and conferences, data service, project support, research visits and doctoral program. IZA engages in (i) original and internationally competitive research in all fields of labor economics, (ii) development of policy concepts, and (iii) dissemination of research results and concepts to the interested public. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author.
    [Show full text]
  • Masahiko Aoki
    Masahiko Aoki (Henri and Tomoye Takahashi Professor Emeritus of Japanese Studies, Economics Department, and Senior Fellow, Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research and Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University, Director of the Virtual Center for Advanced Studies in Institution, Tokyo Foundation). Remarks on “Liberté, Egalité and Fraternité” by Professor Kornai at the conference in honor of Professor Wu Jinglian In honor of the 80 th birthday of Professor Wu, Professor Janos Kornai aptly takes up the fundamental social values of “Liberté, Egalité and Fraternité”, the revolutionary motto of the French revolution, as the theme of his contribution. He examines the achievement of these values in the Eastern European countries after twenty years of the Fall of the Berlin Wall and offers his insight on this as a possible reference frame for China’s reform. I say he does so “aptly”, because Professor Wu, in his paper, China’s Economy: Sixty Years of Progress, authoritatively and insightfully traces the progress with respect to these societal values associated with the complex path of economic development of China, while passionately warning against possible regress that might be brought about by giving-up further reform. Doubtlessly, these two giants from the former planned economies, the West and the East, agree on the importance and relevance of those universal values to economic and societal transformation and development, while they are aware of many obstacles and challenges to realize them in the concrete context of each economy. While Professor Kornai notes remarkable achievements in Eastern European economies as regards Liberté, he points out that there seems to exist no simple political consensus about how to achieve the norm of Egalité and Fraternité.
    [Show full text]
  • Theory of International Politics
    Theory of International Politics KENNETH N. WALTZ University of Califo rnia, Berkeley .A yy Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Reading, Massachusetts Menlo Park, California London • Amsterdam Don Mills, Ontario • Sydney Preface This book is in the Addison-Wesley Series in Political Science Theory is fundamental to science, and theories are rooted in ideas. The National Science Foundation was willing to bet on an idea before it could be well explained. The following pages, I hope, justify the Foundation's judgment. Other institu­ tions helped me along the endless road to theory. In recent years the Institute of International Studies and the Committee on Research at the University of Califor­ nia, Berkeley, helped finance my work, as the Center for International Affairs at Harvard did earlier. Fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation and from the Institute for the Study of World Politics enabled me to complete a draft of the manuscript and also to relate problems of international-political theory to wider issues in the philosophy of science. For the latter purpose, the philosophy depart­ ment of the London School of Economics provided an exciting and friendly envi­ ronment. Robert Jervis and John Ruggie read my next-to-last draft with care and in­ sight that would amaze anyone unacquainted with their critical talents. Robert Art and Glenn Snyder also made telling comments. John Cavanagh collected quantities of preliminary data; Stephen Peterson constructed the TabJes found in the Appendix; Harry Hanson compiled the bibliography, and Nacline Zelinski expertly coped with an unrelenting flow of tapes. Through many discussions, mainly with my wife and with graduate students at Brandeis and Berkeley, a number of the points I make were developed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Property Right Paradigm Armen A. Alchian; Harold Demsetz The
    The Property Right Paradigm Armen A. Alchian; Harold Demsetz The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 33, No. 1, The Tasks of Economic History. (Mar., 1973), pp. 16-27. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0507%28197303%2933%3A1%3C16%3ATPRP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A The Journal of Economic History is currently published by Economic History Association. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/eha.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org Thu Jun 7 08:00:21 2007 The Property Right Paradigm INTRODUCTION CONOMICS textbooks invariably describe the important eco- E nomic choices that all societies must make by the following three questions: What goods are to be produced? How are these goods to be produced? Who is to get what is produced? This way of stating social choice problems is misleading.
    [Show full text]
  • DOUGLASS C. NORTH and NON-MARXIST INSTITUTIONAL DETERMINISM Joseph R
    Journal of Libertarian Studies Volume 16, no. 4 (Fall 2002), pp. 101–137 2002 Ludwig von Mises Institute www.mises.org DOUGLASS C. NORTH AND NON-MARXIST INSTITUTIONAL DETERMINISM Joseph R. Stromberg* Men imprison themselves within structures of their own creation because they are self-mystified. — Edward Palmer Thompson1 Douglass North has written many essays and books over forty or more years in which he has sought to reintegrate economic theory and economic history. His project became more and more ambitious over time, producing interesting insights, questions, and narratives. His early interests and work centered on the economics of location, transpor- tation costs, and interregional economic relations in American history. In mid-career, he seized on transaction costs—modified from time to time by other “variables”—as the main motor of history, economic history, and institutional development. It was North’s approach to combining history and theory that help- ed him bring into being the New Economic History and, later, what North and his school call the New Institutional History. For his efforts, North shared the 1993 Nobel Prize in Economics with Robert W. Fogel, a University of Chicago economist who is a major practitioner of Cliometrics, or quantitative economic history. The Nobel Comm- ittee cited North and Fogel “for having renewed research in economic history by applying economic theory and quantitative methods in order to explain economic and institutional change.”2 *Historian-in-Residence, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama. 1E.P. Thompson, The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays (London: Merlin Press, 1978), p. 165. 2“Press Release,” The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/1993/press.html.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction Masahiko Aoki
    Introduction Masahiko Aoki This volume is a collection of 22 articles that I have written for professional journals and edited volumes in the past 45 years. Naturally there are variations in theme, focus, approach and style among these writings. The articles are therefore organized into four parts according to basic themes. Part I: Comparative Mechanism Design includes eight chapters dealing with economic and organizational processes as computation/information systems. Four chapters in section A deal with the design of resource allocation processes for non-neoclassical environments (that is, non-convexity, externalities) in the ‘price versus quantity’ framework and four chapters in section B analytically compare properties of vertical, horizontal and modular coordination mechanisms in organizations. Part II: The Diversity of Corporate Governance: A Cooperative Game Approach consists of four chapters that analyze the nature of corporate governance as multiple, equilibrium responses to varied information systems of the corporate firm as discussed in Part I, section B. In this approach, the universal validity of the orthodox shareholders’ sovereignty view of corporate governance is challenged. It does not hold as equilibrium for emergent information systems in which the rights of controlling physical assets needs to be complemented by cognitive assets of employees. Part III: Analysis of the Endogenous Nature of Institutions includes five chapters that provide a conceptual framework for understanding institutions as endogenous outcomes of the societal process in which individual beliefs and strategic actions are mediated by public representations of common knowledge. They provide a game-theoretic foundation for important notions in institutional studies such as institutional complementarities, enforcement, social embeddedness, customs, and path-dependence.
    [Show full text]