It is the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publication of Sanford Grossman and Oliver Hart’s “The costs and benefits of ownership, :a theory of vertical and lateral integration” in the Journal of Political Economy. John Moore did a spectacular job introducing the conference. He picked up the paper and said it was so bright that he had to put on sunglasses to look at it (he brought along sunglasses as a prop). He made many other jokes (“We are gathered here today to celebrate…” ) many of which unfortunately I now forget. The conference appears to be taped and perhaps some videos will be available online in the near future. One other point: John checked the Google Scholar scores of the original Grossman-Hart paper and the later Hart-Moore paper – the “property rights theory of the firm” is called the GHM theory. Gross-Hart has approximately 5600 citations and Hart-Moore approximately 3500. Hence, in aggregate, Oliver Hart has 9100 citations (in this area alone!). To acknowledge the different level of contributions and renormalizing by a common factor, John suggested the theory be renamed the G8H15M5 property rights theory of the firm. While cumbersome, the name does convey some information.
Top Posts
- The Marathon Game
- Obsessively Checking Email, Feel Free To Profit From This Idea
- How To Open A Bag of Charcoal
- Why Are Asian Desserts So Bad?
- Who Gets More Pleasure From Sex?
- Pricing Bareback
- Behavioral Economics Reading List
- Organs for Money
- Sherlock Holmes on the Optimal Use of Finite Memory
- Left, Right, Then Left Again
Tags
art art of office politics banana seeds blog books boston california chicago coffee computers crime current events decision-making economics education evolution family financial crisis food and wine friends funny game theory incentives iPhone kludge language law marriage maths movies music obama politics psychology publishing sandeep has bad taste sanitation sport statistics suicide teaching terrorism the web tomatoes travel TV vapor mill war winter writingSubscribe via RSS
Join 1,504 other subscribers

1 comment
Comments feed for this article
June 25, 2011 at 11:51 am
twicker
though “G8H15M5” sounds more like the formula for a molecule than for the relative impact of the authors (and shouldn’t the “G” get a bit more than 8, given that, with GH, HM wouldn’t have come about? That would reduce the effect of the HM portion, so G would gain and both H & M would be reduced … ).