Hubbry Logo
Transaction costTransaction costMain
Open search
Transaction cost
Community hub
Transaction cost
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Transaction cost
Transaction cost
Transaction cost
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In economics, a transaction cost is a cost incurred when making an economic trade when participating in a market.[1]

The idea that transactions form the basis of economic thinking was introduced by the institutional economist John R. Commons in 1931. Oliver E. Williamson's Transaction Cost Economics article, published in 2008,[2] popularized the concept of transaction costs.[3] Douglass C. North argues that institutions, understood as the set of rules in a society, are key in the determination of transaction costs. In this sense, institutions that facilitate low transaction costs can boost economic growth.[4]

Alongside production costs, transaction costs are one of the most significant factors in business operation and management.[5]

Definition

[edit]

Williamson defines transaction costs as a cost innate in running an economic system of companies, comprising the total costs of making a transaction, including the cost of planning, deciding, changing plans, resolving disputes, and after-sales.[6] According to Williamson, the determinants of transaction costs are frequency, specificity, uncertainty, limited rationality, and opportunistic behavior.

Douglass North states that there are four factors that comprise transaction costs – "measurement", "enforcement", "ideological attitudes and perceptions", and "the size of the market".[4] Measurement refers to the calculation of the value of all aspects of the good or service involved in the transaction.[4] Enforcement can be defined as the need for an unbiased third party to ensure that neither party involved in the transaction reneges on their part of the deal.[4] These first two factors appear in the concept of ideological attitudes and perceptions, North's third aspect of transaction costs.[4] Ideological attitudes and perceptions encapsulate each individual's set of values, which influences their interpretation of the world.[4] The final aspect of transaction costs, according to North, is market size, which affects the partiality or impartiality of transactions.[4]

Dahlman categorized the content of transaction activities into three broad categories:[7][8]

  • Search and information costs are costs such as in determining that the required good is available on the market, which has the lowest price, etc.
  • Bargaining and decision costs are the costs required to come to an acceptable agreement with the other party to the transaction, drawing up an appropriate contract and so on. In game theory this is analyzed for instance in the game of chicken. On asset markets and in organizational economics, the transaction cost is some function of the distance between the supply and demand.
  • Policing and enforcement costs are the costs of making sure the other party sticks to the terms of the contract, and taking appropriate action, often through the legal system, if this turns out not to be the case.

Steven N. S. Cheung defines transaction costs as any costs that are not conceivable in a "Robinson Crusoe economy"—in other words, any costs that arise due to the existence of institutions. For Cheung, term "transaction costs" are better described as "institutional costs".[9][10] Many economists, however, restrict this definition to exclude costs internal to an organization.[11]

History

[edit]
The pool shows institutions and market as a possible form of organization to coordinate economic transactions. When the external transaction costs are higher than the internal transaction costs, the company will grow. If the internal transaction costs are higher than the external transaction costs the company will be downsized by outsourcing, for example.

The idea that transactions form the basis of an economic theory was introduced by the institutional economist John R. Commons in 1931. He said that:

These individual actions are really trans-actions instead of either individual behavior or the "exchange" of commodities. It is this shift from commodities and individuals to transactions and working rules of collective action that marks the transition from the classical and hedonic schools to the institutional schools of economic thinking. The shift is a change in the ultimate unit of economic investigation. The classic and hedonic economists, with their communistic and anarchistic offshoots, founded their theories on the relation of man to nature, but institutionalism is a relation of man to man. The smallest unit of the classic economists was a commodity produced by labor. The smallest unit of the hedonic economists was the same or similar commodity enjoyed by ultimate consumers. One was the objective side, the other the subjective side, of the same relation between the individual and the forces of nature. The outcome, in either case, was the materialistic metaphor of an automatic equilibrium, analogous to the waves of the ocean, but personified as "seeking their level". But the smallest unit of the institutional economists is a unit of activity – a transaction, with its participants. Transactions intervene between the labor of the classic economists and the pleasures of the hedonic economists, simply because it is society that controls access to the forces of nature, and transactions are, not the "exchange of commodities", but the alienation and acquisition, between individuals, of the rights of property and liberty created by society, which must therefore be negotiated between the parties concerned before labor can produce, or consumers can consume, or commodities be physically exchanged".

— John R. Commons, Institutional Economics, American Economic Review, Vol.21, pp.648-657, 1931

The term "transaction cost" is frequently and mistakenly thought to have been coined by Ronald Coase, who used it to develop a theoretical framework for predicting when certain economic tasks would be performed by firms, and when they would be performed on the market. While he did not coin the specific term, Coase indeed discussed "costs of using the price mechanism" in his 1937 paper The Nature of the Firm, where he first discusses the concept of transaction costs, marking the first time that the concept of transaction costs was introduced into the study of enterprises and market organizations. The term "Transaction Costs" itself can be traced back to the monetary economics literature of the 1950s, and does not appear to have been consciously 'coined' by any particular individual.[12]

Transaction cost as a formal theory started in the late 1960s and early 1970s.[13] And refers to the "Costs of Market Transactions" in his seminal work, The Problem of Social Cost (1960).

Arguably, transaction cost reasoning became most widely known through Oliver E. Williamson's Transaction Cost Economics. Today, transaction cost economics is used to explain a number of different behaviours. Often this involves considering as "transactions" not only the obvious cases of buying and selling, but also day-to-day emotional interactions and informal gift exchanges. Williamson was one of the most cited social scientists at the turn of the century,[3] and was later awarded the 2009 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics.[14]

Technologies associated with the Fourth Industrial Revolution such as distributed ledger technology[15] and blockchains may reduce transaction costs when compared to traditional forms of contracting.

Examples

[edit]

A supplier may bid in a very competitive environment with a customer to build a widget. To make the widget, the supplier needs to build specialized machinery that cannot be used to make other products. Once the contract is awarded to the supplier, the relationship between customer and supplier changes from a competitive environment to a monopoly/monopsony relationship, known as a bilateral monopoly. This means that the customer has greater leverage over the supplier. To avoid these potential costs, "hostages" may be swapped, which may involve partial ownership in the widget factory and revenue sharing.

Car companies and their suppliers often fit into this category, with the car companies forcing price cuts on their suppliers. Defense suppliers and the military appear to have the opposite problem, with cost overruns occurring quite often.

An example of measurement, one of North's four factors of transaction costs, occurs when roving bandits calculate the success of their banditry based on how much money they can take from their citizens.[16] Enforcement, the second of North's factors of transaction costs, may take the form of a mediator in dealings with the Sicilian mafia when it is not certain that both parties will maintain their end of the deal.[17]

Differences from neoclassical microeconomics

[edit]

Williamson argues in The Mechanisms of Governance (1996) that Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) differs from neoclassical microeconomics in the following points:

Item Neoclassical microeconomics Transaction cost economics
Behavioural assumptions[18] Assumes hyperrationality and ignores most of the hazards related to opportunism Assumes bounded rationality
Unit of analysis Concerned with composite goods and services Analyzes the transaction itself
Governance structure Describes the firm as a production function (a technological construction) Describes the firm as a governance structure (an organizational construction)
Problematic property rights and contracts Often assumes that property rights are clearly defined and that the cost of enforcing those rights by the means of courts is negligible Treats property rights and contracts as problematic
Discrete structural analysis Uses continuous marginal modes of analysis in order to achieve second-order economizing (adjusting margins) Analyzes the basic structures of the firm and its governance in order to achieve first-order economizing (improving the basic governance structure)
Remediableness Recognizes profit maximization or cost minimization as criteria of efficiency Argues that there is no optimal solution and that all alternatives are flawed, thus bounding "optimal" efficiency to the solution with no superior alternative and whose implementation produces net gains
Imperfect Markets Downplays the importance of imperfect markets Robert Almgren and Neil Chriss, and later Robert Almgren and Tianhui Li, showed that the effects of transaction costs lead portfolio managers and options traders to deviate from neoclassically optimal portfolios extending the original analysis to derivative markets.[19][20]

The transaction costs frameworks reject the notion of instrumental rationality and its implications for predicting behavior. Whereas instrumental rationality assumes that an actor's understanding of the world is the same as the objective reality of the world, scholars who focus on transaction costs note that actors lack perfect information about the world (due to bounded rationality).[21]

Game theory

[edit]

In game theory, transaction costs have been studied by Anderlini and Felli (2006).[22] They consider a model with two parties who together can generate a surplus. Both parties are needed to create the surplus. Yet, before the parties can negotiate about dividing the surplus, each party must incur transaction costs. Anderlini and Felli find that transaction costs cause a severe problem when there is a mismatch between the parties' bargaining powers and the magnitude of the transaction costs. In particular, if a party has large transaction costs but in future negotiations it can seize only a small fraction of the surplus (i.e., its bargaining power is small), then this party will not incur the transaction costs and hence the total surplus will be lost. It has been shown that the presence of transaction costs as modelled by Anderlini and Felli can overturn central insights of the Grossman-Hart-Moore theory of the firm.[23][24]

Evaluative mechanisms

[edit]

Oliver E. Williamson's[25] theory of evaluative mechanisms assess economic entitles based on eight variables: bounded rationality, atmosphere, small numbers, information asymmetric, frequency of exchange, asset specificity, uncertainty, and threat of opportunism.[26]

  • Bounded Rationality: refers to the physical and mental, intellectual, emotional and other restrictions imposed by people participating in the transaction in order to maximize their interests.
  • Atmosphere: The reason for increasing the difficulty of the transaction here is mostly because both parties to the transaction remain suspicious of the transaction, and the two sides are hostile to each other. Such a relationship cannot achieve a harmonious atmosphere, let alone a harmonious transaction relationship. This will cause both parties to increase security measures and increase expenditure during the transaction process.
  • Small Numbers: Because the number of the two parties is not equal, the number of available transaction objects is reduced, and the market will be dominated by a few people, which leads to higher market expenditures. The main reason here is that some deals are too proprietary.
  • Information Asymmetric: The pioneers in the market will control the direction of the market, and will know the information that is more beneficial to their own development earlier, and often these information will make opportunists and uncertain environments finalized, which will form a unique information gap. so as to form a transaction and obtain a profit
  • Frequency of exchange: Frequency of exchange refers to buyer activity in the market or the frequency of transactions between the parties occurs. The higher the frequency of transactions, the higher the relative administrative and bargaining costs.
  • Asset specificity: Asset specificity consist of site, physical asset, and human asset specificity. The asset specific investment is a specialized investment, which does not have market liquidity. Once the contract is terminated, the asset specific investment cannot to be redeployed. Therefore, a change or termination of this transaction will result in significant loss.[27]
  • Uncertainty: Uncertainty refers to the risks that may occur in a market exchange. The increase of environmental uncertainty will be accompanied by the increase of transaction cost, such as information acquisition cost, supervision cost and bargaining cost.
  • Threat of opportunism: Threat of opportunism is attributed to human nature. Opportunistic behavior of vendors can lead to higher transaction coordination costs or even termination of contracts. A company can use governance mechanism to reducing the threat of opportunism.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Transaction cost

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Transaction costs are the expenses beyond the direct price of a good or service incurred in coordinating economic exchanges, encompassing the efforts to identify trading partners, negotiate agreements, and monitor or enforce compliance with those agreements. These costs arise from imperfections in information availability, among agents, and potential in interactions, distinguishing them from production costs associated with creating the good itself. The concept originated with economist Ronald Coase's 1937 analysis, which posited that firms emerge as organizational responses to mitigate such costs when market transactions become inefficiently high relative to internal coordination. Central to transaction cost economics is the insight that organizational boundaries—whether to "make" or "buy" inputs—depend on comparing these frictions against alternatives like hierarchical within firms, which can reduce through directives and residual control . Coase's later formulation of the holds that, absent transaction costs and with well-defined property , parties will bargain to the socially efficient outcome irrespective of initial rights allocation, underscoring how real-world frictions prevent Pareto optimality in markets. Empirical studies across disciplines, including and , have substantiated these predictions, showing that , , and of exchange systematically influence choices toward integration or . This framework underpins , revealing causal mechanisms behind , hold-up problems, and the limits of decentralized markets in achieving efficiency without supportive institutions. While measurement challenges persist due to their often implicit nature, transaction costs provide a first-principles lens for dissecting why pure competition rarely materializes and why policy interventions, such as antitrust or , must account for them to avoid unintended increases in exchange frictions.

Core Concepts

Definition

Transaction costs refer to the expenses, beyond the price of the good or service itself, incurred in coordinating economic exchanges through markets, including the discovery of trading partners, negotiation of terms, drafting of contracts, and verification of compliance. first articulated this concept in his 1937 paper "The Nature of the Firm," framing transaction costs as the "costs of using the " that motivate firms to internalize certain activities rather than rely on repeated market transactions. These costs arise because real-world exchanges involve imperfect information, potential opportunism, and the need for safeguards, distinguishing them from idealized frictionless markets assumed in . Transaction costs are commonly categorized into three main types: search and information costs, which involve identifying suitable counterparties and gathering data on prices or quality; bargaining and decision costs, encompassing negotiations to reach mutually acceptable agreements and the drafting of contracts; and policing and enforcement costs, which cover monitoring compliance and resolving disputes through legal or other mechanisms. Empirical studies, such as those analyzing real estate transactions, quantify search costs as time spent scouting properties (often 10-20% of total deal time) and enforcement costs as legal fees averaging 1-2% of transaction value in developed markets. High transaction costs can render certain exchanges inefficient, leading economic agents to prefer hierarchical organization over markets when internal coordination proves cheaper.

Types and Components

Transaction costs are commonly divided into three primary categories: search and information costs, bargaining and decision costs, and policing and enforcement costs. These categories, originally articulated by economist Carl Dahlman in 1979, encompass the frictions inherent in economic exchanges beyond the mere transfer of goods or services. Search and information costs involve the expenses of identifying potential trading partners, evaluating their reliability, and acquiring data on market conditions, product quality, or alternative options; for instance, a firm scouting suppliers may incur costs for market research, travel, or consulting reports to mitigate information asymmetries. Bargaining and decision costs arise during the negotiation phase, including time and resources spent on haggling over terms, drafting agreements, and resolving disputes over division of gains, which can escalate under conditions of asymmetric information or differing valuations. Policing and enforcement costs occur post-agreement and pertain to monitoring compliance with terms and remedying breaches, such as through audits, legal proceedings, or mechanisms; these can be substantial in environments with , where parties may renege or shirk without safeguards. In transaction cost economics as developed by Oliver Williamson, these categories align with a temporal distinction between ex ante (pre-contractual) costs—primarily search, screening, and —and ex post (post-contractual) costs—focused on , monitoring, and under and . Williamson emphasizes that ex ante efforts, like detailed drafting, aim to align incentives and reduce hazards, while ex post mechanisms, such as , address maladaptation risks when heightens vulnerability to hold-up. Empirical studies in transaction cost economics often operationalize these components through measurable proxies, such as time spent on (search), legal fees for (bargaining), and litigation expenses (), revealing that higher costs in one category can cascade into others, influencing choices like market versus internalization. For example, in contexts, information asymmetries amplify search costs, prompting investments in relational contracting to lower overall transaction expenses over repeated exchanges. This breakdown underscores that transaction costs are not monolithic but vary by transaction attributes—, , and specificity—shaping efficient organizational forms without assuming perfect rationality or zero-friction markets.

Historical Development

Ronald Coase's Foundational Insights

Ronald Coase introduced the concept of transaction costs in his 1937 article "The Nature of the Firm," published in Economica, where he sought to explain the existence and boundaries of firms within a market economy. Coase argued that in a world of perfect competition with no frictions, economic activities would be coordinated solely through market prices, yet firms persist because the costs of repeatedly negotiating and executing market transactions—such as discovering prices, bargaining over terms, and enforcing agreements—can exceed the costs of internal hierarchical coordination. These "costs of using the price mechanism," as Coase described them, include not only monetary outlays but also time and effort expended in market exchanges, leading firms to internalize activities up to the point where marginal transaction costs equal marginal organizing costs within the firm. Coase's analysis highlighted that firms replace market transactions with authoritative direction from entrepreneurs or managers, thereby reducing uncertainty and opportunistic behaviors inherent in decentralized markets, though he noted limits arise from increasing costs of internal organization, such as managerial overload or diluted control. This framework implicitly critiqued ' neglect of real-world frictions, positing that the firm's size and scope are determined by comparative transaction costs rather than technological factors alone. Empirical observations, such as varying firm sizes across industries, supported Coase's reasoning, as sectors with high market negotiation costs (e.g., custom manufacturing) exhibit larger firms compared to those with standardized transactions. In his 1960 article "," published in the Journal of Law and Economics, Coase extended transaction cost insights to externalities, challenging Arthur Pigou's by demonstrating that, under zero transaction costs and well-defined property rights, parties would bargain to efficient outcomes regardless of initial liability assignments—a result later formalized as the . However, Coase emphasized that real-world transaction costs are typically positive and substantial, rendering such bargaining infeasible and necessitating institutional analysis to minimize these costs, such as through clear liability rules or intervention only when it reduces net transaction expenses more effectively than private negotiation. For instance, in cases like factory pollution affecting nearby farms, high bargaining costs due to multiple affected parties or information asymmetries prevent Pareto-efficient private resolutions, underscoring the theorem's role as a benchmark rather than a practical rule. Coase's dual contributions established transaction costs as a core explanatory variable in economic organization, influencing subsequent developments in understanding contracts, property rights, and institutional design, while his in 1991 recognized their foundational role in clarifying how such costs shape beyond idealized models. By privileging observable institutional arrangements over abstract efficiency assumptions, Coase's work laid the groundwork for transaction cost economics, prompting empirical studies on factors like incompleteness and hold-up problems that amplify these costs in practice.

Oliver Williamson's Expansion and Formalization

expanded Coase's foundational concept of transaction costs by developing transaction cost economics (TCE) as a systematic framework for analyzing economic and the boundaries of firms. In his seminal 1975 book Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, Williamson posited the transaction as the fundamental unit of economic activity, examining how attributes of transactions determine the choice between market and hierarchical organization to minimize costs. This built on Coase's 1937 insight that firms exist to economize on transaction costs but formalized it through comparative institutional , evaluating alternative structures—markets, hybrids, and hierarchies—under conditions of incomplete contracting. Central to Williamson's formalization were three key transaction attributes: , (or disturbances), and , with the discriminating alignment hypothesis asserting that efficient aligns with these to safeguard against . , investments tailored to particular transactions creating bilateral dependency and hold-up risks, was a pivotal , as high specificity under market invites , favoring internal for authoritative . , where actors are rationally limited and cannot foresee all contingencies, leads to , while —self-interest seeking with guile—amplifies hazards, necessitating that economizes on these behavioral realities rather than assuming perfect . Williamson's TCE progressed from preformal vertical integration studies in the early 1970s to semiformal empirical testing by the 1980s, with over 800 predictive tests by 2006 confirming its discriminating alignments across industries. For instance, power plants adjacent to mines, entailing site-specific assets, exhibit rates approximately six times higher than non-specific cases, reducing haggling and adaptation costs through unified authority. His contributions earned the 2009 in Economic Sciences for clarifying why complex transactions with mutual dependence occur within firms rather than markets, influencing fields from antitrust to organizational design.

Theoretical Foundations

Behavioral Assumptions

Transaction cost economics posits that economic agents operate under bounded rationality, meaning individuals possess limited cognitive capacities and cannot fully anticipate, process, or contract for all future contingencies due to incomplete information and foresight. This assumption, drawn from Herbert Simon's work and formalized in TCE by Oliver Williamson, contrasts with neoclassical models of hyper-rational actors who maximize under ; instead, it recognizes that contracts are necessarily incomplete because agents cannot foresee every possible state of the world or specify responses exhaustively. Bounded rationality implies that ex post adaptations to unforeseen events require ongoing rather than reliance on spot markets or rigid contracts. Complementing bounded rationality is the assumption of opportunism, defined as self-interest seeking with guile, whereby agents may engage in deceptive or exploitative behaviors—such as misrepresentation, shirking, or hold-up—when monitoring is costly or incomplete. Williamson argues this behavioral postulate is empirically grounded in observed contract disputes and organizational safeguards, rather than an ad hoc invention, and it explains why trust alone fails to mitigate hazards in high-stakes exchanges. Opportunism becomes particularly salient when combined with asset specificity, amplifying the risks of ex post bargaining failures, but TCE does not assume universal malfeasance; rather, it posits that even low probabilities of opportunism suffice to drive efficient governance choices like vertical integration over markets. These assumptions jointly underpin TCE's predictive power: under and , transaction costs arise from the need to safeguard exchanges against , favoring hierarchical modes of organization where internal controls substitute for market incentives in mitigating hazards. Williamson's framework treats these as "semi-strong" forms sufficient for discriminating structures without invoking stronger psychological realism, emphasizing their role in explaining real-world institutions over idealized equilibria. Empirical tests, such as those in and , support these postulates by showing that opportunistic risks correlate with integrated , though measurement challenges persist due to the assumptions' qualitative nature.

Governance Mechanisms and Asset Specificity

In transaction cost economics, governance mechanisms refer to the institutional arrangements—such as markets, hierarchies, or hybrids—designed to organize economic exchanges and mitigate transaction costs arising from and . Oliver Williamson emphasized that efficient governance aligns transaction attributes with corresponding structures: simple, non-specific transactions suit market governance with competitive bidding, while complex or specific ones favor hierarchical governance within firms for better internal controls and . This discriminating alignment principle posits that suboptimal governance increases costs, as markets may fail under high risks, whereas hierarchies incur bureaucratic expenses but provide to safeguard investments. Asset specificity, a core transaction , denotes the degree to which investments in physical, , site, or other assets lose productive value if redeployed to alternative uses or users, creating lock-in effects and vulnerability to hold-up by trading partners. Williamson identified six types: site specificity (e.g., co-located facilities to reduce costs), physical asset specificity (customized machinery), asset specificity (relation-specific skills), dedicated assets (specialized investments contingent on trade volume), brand name capital ( tied to a partner), and temporal specificity (time-sensitive investments). High asset specificity amplifies quasi-rents—gains from continued association exceeding next-best alternatives—prompting ex post renegotiation hazards, as the specialized party cannot credibly threaten exit. The interplay between and is predictive: absent specificity, markets suffice with low adaptation and enforcement costs; with moderate specificity, hybrid forms like long-term contracts with relational norms emerge; but strong specificity necessitates to internalize safeguards, reducing maladaptation and haggling. For instance, in industries like automobiles, supplier-specific tooling (high physical specificity) correlates with ownership integration over arm's-length . Empirical studies across sectors, including and services, consistently find that elevated asset specificity predicts hierarchical , supporting TCE's rationale over power or . moderates this only when specificity heightens contractual hazards, not independently driving integration.

Relation to Economic Theories

Departures from Neoclassical Microeconomics

Transaction cost economics (TCE) diverges from neoclassical microeconomics by rejecting the assumption of costless transactions and frictionless markets, instead emphasizing that positive transaction costs—arising from information asymmetries, , and —shape economic and the boundaries of firms. In neoclassical models, economic agents operate under perfect rationality with complete information, enabling instantaneous, cost-free adjustments via competitive prices to achieve ; TCE, however, incorporates , where decision-makers face cognitive limits and cannot foresee all contingencies, leading to vulnerable to ex post adaptations. This shift highlights —self-interest seeking with guile—as a core behavioral assumption, contrasting neoclassical trust in cooperative market equilibria and necessitating governance structures to mitigate risks like hold-up in asset-specific investments..pdf) ![Market-Hierarchy-Model.png][float-right] A key departure lies in the unit of analysis: neoclassical microeconomics focuses on continuous marginal adjustments in prices, outputs, and production functions, treating the firm as a black box optimizing inputs to outputs under given technology; TCE analyzes discrete transactions, evaluating alternative governance modes—such as spot markets, long-term contracts, or internal hierarchies—based on their efficacy in economizing on transaction costs. For instance, where neoclassical theory assumes markets always minimize costs through competition, TCE explains vertical integration as a response to high transaction costs in bilateral trading relationships with specific assets, as formalized by Williamson's discrimination among governance structures aligned with transactional attributes like frequency, uncertainty, and specificity. Empirical implications include predicting that firms internalize activities when market transaction costs exceed bureaucratic costs, a prediction absent in neoclassical frameworks that view firm size and scope as exogenous. TCE further critiques neoclassical reliance on equilibrium price theory by adopting a comparative institutional approach, assessing real-world feasibility of contractual arrangements rather than idealized . This lens reveals market failures not as coordination breakdowns but as predictable outcomes of transaction cost imbalances, such as in cases of small-numbers where erodes market viability..pdf) Unlike neoclassical models that prescribe interventions assuming zero implementation costs, TCE warns that such remedies may incur their own transaction costs, potentially favoring private ordering over public . Transaction costs are inherently linked to game theory through the modeling of strategic interactions, particularly opportunism and bounded rationality, where agents anticipate defection or hold-up in exchanges. In game-theoretic frameworks, transaction costs arise from the probability of loss in cooperative games, influenced by direct costs that affect equilibria; for instance, higher search or bargaining costs reduce the likelihood of efficient Nash outcomes in one-shot or repeated games. Asset specificity exacerbates these costs by creating bilateral dependency, akin to prisoner's dilemma scenarios where ex post renegotiation allows one party to exploit the other's sunk investments, leading to underinvestment incentives. The exemplifies this intersection, as relationship-specific investments generate quasi-rents vulnerable to opportunistic renegotiation, modeled as non-cooperative bargaining games like the Rubinstein model, where unequal distorts efficiency. Transaction cost economics (TCE) posits that such strategic vulnerabilities—rooted in incomplete information and foresight—necessitate structures to minimize ex post hazards, directly informing game-theoretic analyses of defection risks in alliances or supply chains. Contract theory extends these links by formalizing optimal contract design under transaction frictions, such as asymmetric information and enforcement costs, often employing game-theoretic tools like principal-agent models to address and . In TCE, contracts are incomplete due to high drafting and verification costs, prompting reliance on authority-based hierarchies over market mechanisms when heightens hold-up risks; this aligns with contract theory's emphasis on incentive-compatible mechanisms to align interests amid unverifiable actions. Empirical extensions, such as in decisions, quantify these costs via game simulations showing how repeated interactions or can mitigate , though one-shot games underscore persistent inefficiencies.

Applications and Examples

Firm Organization and Vertical Integration

In transaction cost economics, firm organization emerges as a response to the relative costs of market exchange versus internal coordination. Firms expand boundaries through when transaction costs in intermediate markets—such as those arising from , , and —exceed the costs of hierarchical . This choice aligns production stages within the firm to safeguard investments and reduce hold-up risks, where one party exploits relation-specific commitments post-investment. Asset specificity, a core concept formalized by Oliver Williamson, drives much of this integration logic. Physical, site, human, or dedicated assets tailored to a particular transaction lose productive value outside that relationship, heightening to ex post . Williamson's framework posits that under and , such specificity favors internal organization over arm's-length contracts, as hierarchies provide adaptive, authority-based to mitigate maladaptation and renegotiation hazards. Empirical studies corroborate this: higher specificity correlates with greater across industries, including and sectors. Frequency and further modulate these decisions. Infrequent, low- transactions suit spot markets, but repeated exchanges under volatile conditions amplify monitoring and enforcement costs, tilting toward integration. For instance, in upstream-downstream supply chains with customized components, firms integrate to align incentives and ensure continuity, as evidenced by analyses of oil pipelines and refineries where specificity and predict integration patterns. Transaction cost economics thus explains why firms neither fully disintegrate into markets nor conglomerate excessively, but selectively integrate to economize on costs.

Externalities and the Coase Theorem

Externalities occur when the actions of one economic agent impose uncompensated costs or benefits on others, leading to market inefficiencies as private costs diverge from social costs. In the of , argued in his 1960 paper "" that such discrepancies arise not inherently from but from the absence of well-defined and the presence of positive transaction costs that hinder bargaining. Coase demonstrated through examples, such as a rancher's straying onto a neighboring farmer's crops, that if are clearly assigned and transaction costs are negligible, affected parties will negotiate side payments to internalize the , achieving the socially optimal level of activity regardless of the initial allocation. The formalizes this insight: under conditions of zero transaction costs and complete property rights, private bargaining will produce an efficient outcome, rendering the specific assignment of liability irrelevant to efficiency. Transaction costs, including , information gathering, and enforcement expenses, are central to the theorem's scope; when low, as in bilateral disputes with verifiable harm (e.g., two adjoining landowners), voluntary agreements often resolve externalities without third-party intervention. Empirical cases support this where small numbers of parties facilitate deals, such as conservation easements between neighboring property owners, but break down in scenarios with many affected parties, like urban , where free-rider problems and coordination costs escalate. In practice, positive transaction costs—often substantial due to asymmetric information, hold-up risks, or large group sizes—prevent the theorem's predictions from holding, allowing externalities to persist and prompting debates over alternative remedies like Pigouvian taxes or regulations. Coase critiqued traditional approaches, such as those of Arthur Pigou, for assuming unilateral harm and overlooking the reciprocal nature of externalities, where both parties' activities contribute to the conflict; he advocated evaluating interventions against their own implicit transaction costs rather than presuming superiority. Studies indicate that while the theorem holds in experiments with low costs, real-world applications, such as fishery assignments, reveal that even with defined rights, high frictions lead to inefficient outcomes unless institutions reduce costs, as seen in tradable pollution permits that approximate Coasean bargaining at scale. This framework underscores transaction costs' role in determining whether markets or hierarchies better address externalities; when costs exceed benefits, firms or regulations may internalize them more effectively than decentralized , though Coase warned against over-relying on state solutions without comparative . Limitations persist, as transaction costs like strategic pre- investments can distort outcomes even under the theorem's assumptions, highlighting the need for institutional designs that minimize such frictions.

Digital and Blockchain Contexts

Digital technologies have substantially diminished certain transaction costs by enhancing information availability and reducing search and bargaining frictions. Platforms such as online marketplaces enable instantaneous matching of buyers and sellers, lowering the costs associated with discovering prices and qualities that traditionally required physical inspections or negotiations. For instance, systems facilitate sharing, which mitigates information asymmetries and supports more efficient contracting without extensive hierarchical oversight. This aligns with transaction cost economics predictions that declining costs shift activity toward markets rather than internalized firm structures, as observed in the growth of gig economies where platforms like coordinate independent contractors via algorithms rather than contracts. Blockchain technology further addresses enforcement and verification costs inherent in traditional transactions by leveraging decentralized ledgers and cryptographic consensus mechanisms. In exchanges, eliminates intermediaries such as banks or clearinghouses, which in conventional systems impose fees averaging 1-3% per cross-border transfer, by enabling direct, immutable recording of agreements. Smart contracts, self-executing code on platforms like , automate compliance and reduce opportunistic renegotiation risks—key concerns in Williamson's framework—through predefined, tamper-proof rules that execute upon verifiable conditions. Empirical analyses indicate that adoption in supply chains can cut verification times from days to minutes and reduce overall costs by up to 30% in sectors like , where prevents disputes over quality or delivery. Despite these reductions, introduces new frictions, such as fees (e.g., gas costs spiking to over $50 per transaction during peak demand in 2021) and limits that elevate opportunity costs for high-volume users. Studies applying transaction cost lenses to (DeFi) protocols show efficiency gains in trustless lending, where collateralized smart contracts minimize compared to traditional banking's monitoring overhead, though vulnerabilities like failures can amplify ex post adjustment costs. Overall, 's impact favors modular governance in global value chains, hybridizing market and hierarchy elements to handle asset-specific investments in digital assets like tokens, but remains mixed on net reductions versus legacy systems due to energy and regulatory overheads.

Empirical Evidence

Measurement Approaches

Transaction costs pose significant measurement challenges because they encompass implicit, non-pecuniary, and opportunity elements that are not directly observable in . Empirical approaches thus rely on a of direct quantification of explicit components and indirect proxies or inferences from economic . Direct measurement targets observable monetary and time-based outlays, such as commissions, transfer fees, taxes, execution costs, and search time valued at rates. In , a common formula decomposes these into fixed costs (e.g., brokerage fees) plus variable costs (e.g., bid-ask spreads and opportunity costs from delayed trades), with Stoll and Whaley (1983) estimating effective rates of 2% for large transactions and up to 9% for smaller ones. Bhardwaj and Brooks (1992) similarly report ranges of 2% to 12.5% depending on trade size and market conditions. These methods, while precise for traded assets, understate broader informational and frictions by focusing on ex-post execution rather than search. Indirect approaches predominate in transaction cost economics (TCE), using proxies like , transaction frequency, and environmental uncertainty to predict governance structures (e.g., markets versus hierarchies) without estimating absolute cost magnitudes. For instance, high —measured via duration or irreversibility—serves as a surrogate for hold-up risks, enabling regression-based tests of integration decisions. Aggregate sector-level estimates provide macroeconomic proxies, as in Wallis and North (1986), who calculated the U.S. transaction sector (wholesale, retail, finance, etc.) at 25% of gross national product in 1870, expanding to 45% by 1970, reflecting rising coordination demands in complex economies. In non-market and development contexts, measurement emphasizes procedural barriers and time equivalents, such as de Soto's (1989) documentation of multi-year delays and informal fees for legal business formation in , or Djankov et al.'s (2002) cross-country analysis of entry regulations across 85 economies, where time costs alone equated to over 200% of per-capita income in some cases. These approaches highlight institutional frictions but face critiques for incomplete data on informal sectors and subjective valuations of time. Overall, no unified metric exists, with validity depending on context—micro-level direct measures suit financial trades, while proxies better capture strategic behaviors in TCE applications.

Key Studies and Findings

One seminal empirical study is Paul Joskow's 1985 analysis of supply contracts for U.S. electric utilities, which found that site-specific investments—measured by mine-mouth plant proximity—significantly predict or long-term contracting to mitigate hold-up risks, with integrated or long-term contracted plants located an average of 92 miles from mines compared to 333 miles for buyers. A follow-up by Joskow in 1987 extended this, showing contract durations averaging 18 years for high-specificity relationships versus shorter terms otherwise, supporting transaction cost predictions over spot markets in reducing . Kirk Monteverde and David Teece's 1982 examination of U.S. automobile component sourcing revealed that correlates with quasi-specific human assets, such as proprietary engineering know-how; using survey data from and , they estimated that higher appropriable quasi-rents from specialized skills increase integration likelihood by reducing ex post bargaining hazards. Scott Masten, James Meehan, and Edward Snyder's 1991 study on U.S. Navy shipbuilding contracts demonstrated that (e.g., specialized hull designs) and (e.g., changing requirements) drive hierarchical over market , with showing a 20-30% higher integration probability under high-specificity conditions. Broader meta-analyses confirm these patterns: a 2010 review by Jeffrey Macher and Barak Richman of over 300 studies across disciplines found consistent that positively predicts non-market governance in , though uncertainty measures yield mixed results due to with other factors. Similarly, Peter Klein, Michael S. Plaumann, and Peter G. Klein's 2012 assessment of TCE literature emphasized strong support for specificity as a discriminator between markets and hierarchies, with weaker but positive for transaction frequency in repeated exchanges. In contexts, James Brickley's 1999 analysis of 238 U.S. firms showed that firm-owned outlets increase with monitoring costs and local specificity (e.g., ), reducing free-riding risks, while franchise proportions rise in low-specificity rural areas. These findings underscore TCE's explanatory power, though critics note endogeneity challenges in measuring proxies.

Criticisms and Debates

Theoretical Limitations

Transaction cost economics (TCE) faces criticism for its definitional ambiguity, as the concept of transaction costs lacks a precise, universally agreed-upon delineation that distinguishes it rigorously from production costs or other economic frictions. This vagueness undermines theoretical intelligibility, with critics arguing that expansive interpretations—such as encompassing any impediment to efficient exchange—render explanations potentially tautological, where observed outcomes are retroactively attributed to unspecified transaction costs without predictive power. Pierre Schlag highlights this issue, noting that definitions ranging from exhaustive but circular formulations (e.g., any barrier to Pareto optimality) to narrower ones fail to provide a coherent analytical category independent of broader efficiency failures. A related foundational weakness lies in TCE's core behavioral assumptions of and ("self-interest seeking with guile"), which are posited as universal drivers of choices but may oversimplify human motivation by marginalizing factors like trust, reciprocity, habitual routines, and social . Geoffrey Hodgson contends that this cost-minimization lens neglects how organizations foster through integration and capability-building processes, rather than solely mitigating hazards; firms, in this view, emerge from dynamic interactions enhancing worker skills via routines, not just economizing on transaction hazards. Such assumptions also limit TCE's explanatory scope for non-opportunistic behaviors prevalent in repeated exchanges or cultural contexts, where empirical deviations from predicted hold-up risks suggest alternative mechanisms at play. TCE's predominantly comparative static framework further constrains its theoretical robustness, prioritizing ex post selection among governance modes (e.g., markets versus hierarchies) for given transactions while sidelining endogenous dynamics like learning, , and institutional . This static orientation assumes production costs remain invariant across structures, ignoring contextual complementarities or technological shifts that alter cost profiles over time; for instance, Hodgson notes the absence of mechanisms to explain how transaction cost-minimizing arrangements themselves evolve through trial-and-error or path-dependent processes. Consequently, TCE struggles to predict shifts in organizational forms amid changing environments, such as rapid technological disruptions, where or competence-based views offer complementary insights but reveal TCE's elastic concepts as explanatorily indeterminate—capable of rationalizing diverse outcomes without falsifiable priors.

Empirical and Practical Challenges

Empirical measurement of transaction costs remains elusive due to their non-observable nature, encompassing search, , and activities not captured in standard or . Direct quantification is rare and context-specific, such as Gabre-Madhin's finding that transaction costs constituted 19% of total costs in Ethiopia's grain markets, but broader estimates like Wallis and North's 45% of U.S. GNP in 1970 rely on aggregates of transaction sector employment rather than precise differentials. Researchers frequently employ proxies like (e.g., R&D intensity or physical proximity) or measures, yet these are subjective, inconsistently defined across studies, and prone to conflation with production costs or complexity, hindering comparability and validity. Testing transaction cost economics empirically yields mixed results, with strong evidence for predicting shifts to hierarchical —such as in high-specificity industries—but weaker or conditional support for uncertainty and transaction frequency, often requiring interaction with specificity to explain outcomes. Methodological hurdles include endogeneity, where governance choices influence the very transaction costs they purportedly minimize, in sample data, and overreliance on subjective survey scales like Likert ratings for constructs such as , which is seldom measured directly. Comprehensive reviews of over 900 studies across disciplines confirm convergence on core predictions in but reveal gaps in fields like , where proxies fail to isolate efficiency from institutional or political influences, underscoring the theory's incomplete . Practical application of transaction cost theory falters in dynamic settings due to , which limits ex ante prediction of costs under , and the theory's underspecification of mitigating factors like trust, which empirical evidence shows reduces effective costs in relational contracting (e.g., Dyer and Chu's analysis of buyer-supplier pairs). , a foundational assumption, proves hard to model or anticipate, leading to overemphasis on formal safeguards at the expense of hybrid or adaptive forms observed in practice, such as alliances in Japanese automaking. Conceptual ambiguities, including failure to rigorously distinguish transaction from production costs or integrate rent dissipation, further disconnect theory from real-world decisions in policy or firm organization, where capabilities and learning often eclipse pure cost minimization.

Institutional and Policy Implications

Property Rights and Market Efficiency

Well-defined property rights reduce transaction costs by establishing clear boundaries over resource use and ownership, thereby minimizing disputes, negotiation hurdles, and enforcement expenses in market exchanges. These rights enable parties to reliably predict outcomes of trades, lowering the informational asymmetries and hold-up risks that inflate bargaining costs. , in his seminal 1960 analysis, posited that precise property rights, combined with low transaction costs, allow affected parties to bargain toward the that maximizes total production value, regardless of initial rights assignment—a central to understanding market-driven . Douglass North emphasized that institutions enforcing such curtail the broader costs of defining, protecting, and transferring assets, fostering environments conducive to investment and repeated exchange. In settings with ambiguous or insecure , transaction costs rise due to heightened risks of expropriation or litigation, distorting incentives and impeding efficient resource deployment. North's framework highlights how evolutionary institutional changes toward stronger property protections historically underpinned economic expansion, as seen in transitions from feudal to market-oriented systems in by the . Policy implications favor institutional reforms that solidify property rights over ad hoc regulations, which often introduce additional compliance and monitoring costs. For example, formal titling programs in , as documented by , converted informal holdings into tradable assets, slashing transfer and collateralization costs while spurring credit access and productivity gains equivalent to billions in mobilized capital. Such measures enhance market efficiency by expanding the scope for voluntary contracting, though their success hinges on credible enforcement to avoid reversion to informal equilibria under high . Globally, insecure rights in developing contexts correlate with elevated transaction frictions, constraining GDP growth by an estimated 1-2% annually in affected regions.

Critiques of Regulatory Interventions

Critiques of regulatory interventions from a transaction cost perspective emphasize that government mandates often impose bureaucratic, compliance, and enforcement costs that exceed those of private market adjustments, particularly when property rights are well-defined and transaction costs in voluntary bargaining remain low. argued in his analysis of externalities that regulatory solutions, such as Pigovian taxes or direct controls, overlook the comparative transaction costs of government administration versus private negotiation, potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes where parties could otherwise internalize externalities efficiently without state involvement. This view challenges the presumption of regulatory superiority in addressing market failures, as interventions introduce hazards like and opportunities that raise contracting and adaptation expenses for economic actors. Empirical assessments quantify these added burdens, with U.S. federal regulations generating compliance costs estimated at an additional $465 billion in real terms from 2012 to 2022, equivalent to 1.8% annual growth and encompassing expenditures on paperwork, , and monitoring that divert resources from productive uses. Such costs disproportionately affect smaller firms, which lack in navigating regulatory complexity, thereby entrenching for incumbents through and selective compliance advantages. Studies tracking regulatory labor inputs further indicate that federal and state rules elevate firm-level transaction expenses in acquisition and avoidance, with from sector-specific showing these effects amplify during periods of expansion. Transaction cost economics, as developed by Oliver Williamson, extends this critique by highlighting opportunism and in regulatory hierarchies, where political influences foster and incomplete contracting, resulting in interventions that fail to minimize hold-up risks or problems compared to decentralized markets. For instance, regulatory frameworks designed without accounting for dynamic adaptation costs can induce inefficient governance modes, as seen in utilities and environmental sectors where command-and-control mechanisms generate higher monitoring and expenses than incentive-compatible alternatives. Proponents of this approach advocate evaluating policies through a lens of transaction cost minimization, arguing that many regulations persist due to institutional and interest-group capture rather than demonstrated gains over private ordering.

References

  1. https://www.coase.org/workingpapers/wp-1.pdf
  2. https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/what-were-some-of-the-key-ideas-of-economist-ronald-coase
  3. https://www.aei.org/articles/transaction-costs-and-markets-in-networks/
  4. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/259029/1/v10103-009-0022-7.pdf
  5. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2287&context=faculty_scholarship
  6. https://www.econlib.org/transaction-costs-are-the-costs-of-engaging-in-economic-calculation/
  7. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3893691
  8. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/transaction-costs/
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/transaction-costs-theory
  10. https://strategicmanagementreview.net/assets/articles/Bylund.pdf
  11. http://cafehayek.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Carl-Dahlman.pdf
  12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/transaction-cost
  13. https://journals.vilniustech.lt/index.php/JCEM/article/download/5199/4490/11231
  14. http://web.stanford.edu/~avner/Greif_228_2005/Williamson%25201989%2520Transaction%2520Cost.pdf
  15. https://josephmahoney.web.illinois.edu/BA549_Fall%25202010/Session%25203/Williamson%2520%281979%29.pdf
  16. https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/stadelis/tce_org_handbook_111410.pdf
  17. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x
  18. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications/frbdal_ei/frbdal_ei_2003_no3.pdf
  19. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1991/coase/lecture/
  20. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Coase.html
  21. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/economic-ideas-ronald-coase
  22. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/lawecon/coaseinmemoriam/problemofsocialcost
  23. https://www.sfu.ca/~wainwrig/Econ400/coase-socialcost.pdf
  24. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2009/popular-information/
  25. https://web.pdx.edu/~nwallace/EHP/TCEProgression.pdf
  26. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2009/williamson/lecture/
  27. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2778934
  28. https://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Williamson%2520%281988%29%2520-%2520The%2520Logic%2520of%2520Economic%2520Organization.pdf
  29. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Oliver-Williamson/publication/228741660_Empirical_microeconomics_Another_perspective/links/5655fd8708ae1ef92979be19/Empirical-microeconomics-Another-perspective.pdf
  30. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-institutional-economics/article/commemorating-oliver-williamson-a-founding-father-of-transaction-cost-economics/29B6BA2DF80A59ADE12A30108786F3E2
  31. https://josephmahoney.web.illinois.edu/BA545_Fall%25202022/Cuypers%2C%2520Hennart%2C%2520Silverman%2520and%2520Ertug%2520%282021%29.pdf
  32. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.100.3.673
  33. https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/williamson_lecture.pdf
  34. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2287&context=faculty_scholarship
  35. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1148775_code485747.pdf?abstractid=924192
  36. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-69305-5_4
  37. https://mnje.com/sites/mnje.com/files/07-12_williamson.pdf
  38. https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.10348
  39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/256759
  40. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313542411_Hold-Up_Problem
  41. https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/hermalin/Hermalin_Katz_7706_RR.pdf
  42. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mic.20200128
  43. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0019850105000313
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0167268188900376
  45. https://adambrown.info/p/notes/coase_the_problem_of_social_cost
  46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301479711003331
  47. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4336&context=faculty_scholarship
  48. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3253&context=nrj
  49. https://economie.esg.uqam.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2018/03/Medema_Steve_Mars2018.pdf
  50. https://units.georgetown.edu/economics/pdf/327.pdf
  51. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3361&context=mlr
  52. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/13/9/264
  53. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343351404_Transaction_Cost_Economics_in_the_Digital_Economy_A_Research_Agenda
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10394392/
  55. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040162519302586
  56. http://oiccpress.com/ijamad/article/view/8472
  57. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1544612323008796
  58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352673419300824
  59. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jsc.2487
  60. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/blockchain/articles/10.3389/fbloc.2025.1463633/full
  61. https://www.coase.org/workingpapers/wp-2.pdf
  62. https://academic.oup.com/jleo/article-abstract/1/1/33/952058
  63. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-and-politics/article/transaction-cost-economics-an-assessment-of-empirical-research-in-the-social-sciences/F8A15284520F07A0421F5752EBB6C773
  64. https://lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/schlag/SchlagSCLR.pdf
  65. https://organizationsandmarkets.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/hodgson-g-limits-of-transaction-cost-analysis.pdf
  66. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.09087
  67. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24585/w24585.pdf
  68. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2001/03/desoto.htm
  69. https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/18111-libecap.pdf
  70. https://hal.science/hal-02409115v1/document
  71. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336415732_The_problem_of_regulatory_arbitrage_A_transaction_cost_economics_perspective
  72. https://www.nam.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/NAM-3731-Crains-Study-R3-V2-FIN.pdf
  73. https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs4751/files/2022-10/regulatory_compliance_burdens_litreview_synthesis_finalweb.pdf
  74. https://www.nber.org/digest/20232/tracking-cost-complying-government-regulation
  75. https://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1010&context=alea
  76. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421509002729
  77. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=620512
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.