Search

The idea of transactions in social sciences was conceived by John Rogers Commons in the beginning of the 1920s, representing a mental instrument capable of describing capitalism and its peculiarities. On the other hand, Oliver Williamson's approach in late 1970s reduced the concept to the mere transfer of goods and services in institutions that are or are not guided by the price system. The aim of this article is to present the characteristics of these two different approaches to the concept of transactions, evidencing the role of epistemological aspects and investigative purposes (referred to relevant research context and problem originated in it) as the causes of its metamorphosis. John Commons' effort to build up a concept not only capable of transcending the idea of exchange but also of giving a totalising perspective to the interpretation of capitalism is emptied in Williamson's appropriation of the term. By utilising Commons' conception of transactions and trying to subsume it to his 'general theory of transaction costs', Williamson limits its scope and meaning, adjusting it without producing rupture with the neoclassical economy. This article tries to catch the vicissitudes of this concept found in both authors. JEL: B15, B25, B31 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This contribution commemorates Oliver Williamson, who recently passed away, as one of the founding fathers of Transaction Cost Economics (TCE). It does so by touching on some of the details of his personal life and connecting these with his professional career. The latter was devoted to putting the study of institutions on the economic agenda. Closer scrutiny reveals that three phases may be identified. Williamson first developed an interest in analysing vertical integration. During the second phase, he elaborated this interest in TCE, and during the third, he positioned his contributions within the area of institutional economics. Furthermore, the article considers the various influences of institutional and organizational economists on Williamson. Finally, the article considers the reception, criticism, and further elaborations of Williamson's contributions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Williamson's legacy will be permanently, and deservedly, linked with the theory of the firm. As important, however, is his contribution to our understanding of contracting. My aim here is to describe Williamson's conception of contracting, how it differs from other approaches to contracting, and some implications of that approach for contract design and enforcement. I argue that Williamson's 'process orientation' – in which the main dimension along which contracts vary is the extent to which contract adjustments are effected through court ordering versus private ordering – provides alternative interpretations of some conventional contract terms but also sheds light on some otherwise puzzling contractual phenomena. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this essay, we honour the memory of Oliver Williamson by reflecting on Chiles and McMackin's 1996 Academy of Management Review article 'Integrating variable risk preferences, trust, and transaction cost economics'. The article, which built on Williamson's work in transaction cost economics (TCE), went on to attract attention not only from the authors' home discipline of management and organisation studies, but also from other business disciplines, the professions and the social sciences. After revisiting the article's origins and core arguments, we turn to selectively (re)view TCE's development since 1996 through the lens of this article, focusing on trust, risk and subjective costs. We cover conceptual and empirical developments in each of these areas and reflect on how our review contributes to previous debates concerning trade-offs implicit in relaxing TCE's behavioural assumptions. We conclude by reflecting on key points of learning from our review and possible implications for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Joseph Campbell describes a narrative pattern for a hero's journey. 'A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from the mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man' (2008: 30). This paper looks at Oliver E. Williamson's life through Campbell's lens and reveals his journey, challenges, and triumphs not only for himself but also for all students of the science of organization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This special issue is occasioned by the 50th anniversary of the publication of Williamson's (Am Econ Rev 58:18–36, 1968a) seminal analysis of the impact of mergers on market performance. The Introduction reviews Williamson's work on the topic, and introduces the seven contributions to the special issue. Four are empirical; two are theoretical; and one focuses on policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transaction cost economics (TCE) has received much attention in the international marketing literature over the past 25 years. Many key issues in international marketing have been examined through the lens of TCE, including entry mode choice, the governance of international distribution channels, propensity to franchise, international pricing control, and the governance of international buyer-supplier relationships. The author presents a review and analysis of 43 empirical TCE international marketing studies from 1987 to the present day. The results from this review and analysis indicate that the extant international marketing TCE studies demonstrate some support for the TCE propositions. In addition to these findings, the author also notes some key measurement issues, issues involving the dominance of U.S.-based studies, and some data equivalence issues. He builds on the results of the analysis to lay out important future research directions in the TCE international marketing domain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transaction cost economics (TCE), as developed and operationalized by Oliver Williamson, is one of the most prominent and influential developments in the social sciences. In recent years, on the basis of many empirical studies, it has been claimed that the evidence has corroborated TCE. If so, this would have major implications for the debate between TCE and other approaches to understanding the nature of the firm. In this paper we submit the most prominent TCE empirical work to critical scrutiny, on the basis of the standards and predictions in Williamson's own writings. We find a much more mixed picture, with few studies giving unambiguous support to Williamson's TCE. Furthermore, a significant number of the studies can be reinterpreted in terms of a competence or capabilities approach. We conclude that the empirical evidence does not decisively support Williamson's TCE and we stress the importance of an empirical program of joint testing of rival theoretical approaches. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is twofold. First, we offer a methodological reflection on how the explanatory virtues of economic theories can be assessed in a systematic way. Second, we use that theoretical apparatus to study the explanatory virtues of Transaction Cost Economics (TCE, henceforth).Precisely, we are primarily interested in assessing the progress within TCE with respect to its explanatory power rather than directly comparing TCE’s explanatory virtues to alternative theories. The paper offers also some general insights into the way we compare economic theories.

Agafonow’s article locates the role of social enterprises in devolving value through output maximizing behavior. This short paper embeds Agafonow’s argument in the societal and institutional context by building upon Luhmann’s social systems theory. According to Luhmann, the functional system of the economy exhibits “imperatives” that cause social ills. The institutional form of social enterprises is shown to weaken these imperatives in several ways. One of these ways, discussed by Agafonow, is the substitution of profit maximization by output maximization. Other ways are the substitution of high-powered incentives by low-powered ones as elaborated in the work of Williamson and Hansmann. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is twofold. First, we offer a methodological reflection on how the explanatory virtues of economic theories can be assessed in a systematic way. Second, we use that theoretical apparatus to study the explanatory virtues of' Transaction Cost Economics (TCE, henceforth). Precisely, we are primarily interested in assessing the progress within TCE with respect to its explanatory power rather than directly comparing TCE's explanatory virtues to alternative theories. The paper offers also some general insights into the way we compare economic theories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Metaphors are part of our daily lives as they help us understand the world. Economics, as with other areas of knowledge, cannot go without metaphors. Transaction Cost Economics (TCE)—a prominent theoretical framework on economic organisation—is no different: it has been built on a set of metaphors. This article gathers and discusses three of the key metaphors of TCE—transaction costs as frictions, human beings as “contractual men,” and economic selection between mechanisms of governance. How they fit together and help the construction of TCE are the issues at hand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of transaction cost economics (TCE) in the early 1970s with Oliver Williamson's successful reconciliation of the socalled neoclassical approach with Herbert Simon's organizational theory can be considered an important part of the first cognitive turn in economics. The development of TCE until the late 1980s was particularly marked by treating the firm as an avoider of negative frictions, i.e., of transaction costs. However, since the 1990s TCE has been enriched by various approaches stressing the role of the firm in creating positive value, e.g., the literature on modularity. Hence, a second cognitive turn has taken place: the firm is no longer only seen as an avoider of negative costs but also as a creator of positive knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The correspondence between Herbert Simon and Oliver Williamson reveals a history of disagreement ultimately resolved by a reinstatement of mutual respect and agreement. On the surface, the disagreements concern questions about the appropriate trade-offs between realism and comprehension in economic theory, on the extent to which the theory should be based on realistic behavioral assumptions. At another level, however, the disagreements expose a different issue: Whether the sacrifices of realism involved in seeking comprehensible theory are to be experienced as unfortunate but necessary costs or as agonizing falls from grace that may be forgiven but only if accompanied with pain and contrition. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

New institutional economics explains capitalist institutions by means of neoclassical tools. This method consists of introducing non-market institutions as solutions to market futures. The explicit or implicit assumption is that in the beginning there were markets. In this paper, we criticise this conception inherited from neoclassical economics by focusing on Williamson's theory. First, we discuss Williamson's speculative method, which idealises the market and presents it as natural and universal. We then suggest that Williamson's categories, his method and conception are themselves products of bourgeois ideology. In this sense, we conclude, Williamson himself is ultimately an 'institution of capitalism'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two related goals are pursued. First, the development of, and debates around Oliver Williamson's version of transaction cost economics are organised in terms of an emerging metatheoretical framework. It proposes looking at economic theorising and its changes in terms of rival theoretical isolations which are often responses to challenging explanatory questions. As a side product, Williamson's strategy of theorising is portrayed. Second, using transaction cost economics as an illustration and as a source of inspiration, the paper amends and refines the earlier framework of theoretical isolation by incorporating notions of explaining and explained items; notions of progress (in questions as well as increased causal penetration and increased degree of unification); and the notion of the dynamics of dispute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]