Talk:Contract theory/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Contract theory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Part of the common law series?
I wonder why this article is (or should be) "Part of the common law series". Contract theory is much the same subject in common law and civil law jurisdictions. Velho 01:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Economics!
Contracts is a topic in law, while "Contract theory" is a topic in economics. As a result, this article needs a rewrite that replaces the legal content and infobox with a disambig link at the top and hugely expands the economics content. Jeremy Tobacman 21:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have begun an overhaul to this end. Jeremy Tobacman 02:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Relation to information economics?
Should contract theory be considered a subset of information economics, or vice versa, or are the two essentially synonyms? Opinions appreciated. --Rinconsoleao 08:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I just wrote a comment about this very question. Contract theory is the modern name for this topic, subsuming asymmetric information as well. I'm starting to make changes to reflect this. Help would be more than welcome! Jeremy Tobacman 21:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Costly state verification - any comments if this contract theory article should be deleted?
best regards, Power.corrupts (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Definitions
all contracts are agreements but all agreements are not contracts.Discuss
I havent too much time to spend on this essay/exam question. But, instead I just wanted to warn people that this article needs some heavy work because frankly, it is dire. In terms of representing the myriad different interpretations of contract rules, and the many different theories posited, it is frankly dire.
Firstly, you cannot simply distinguish between "classical" theory and then "modern" theory. There is, in my judgement, no such thing as "classical" theory. I have never read any theory labelled "classic". There are will theories, bargain theories, promissory theories, consent theories, economic theories.... There is no "classical" element to any of them, since in actual fact many of them rest on interpretation of classic cases and classic rules. It is only the modern writers who seek to label some as "classical" that have been relied upon by others misconceived to describe a distinction between "classical" and "modern". Indeed, this classification is dire, since the complexitiy of modern contract law is due to the fact that it has elements of all different theories and that is embodied in its many haphazard doctrines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.198.98 (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- The reason you've never seen any theory labeled 'classic' is because you've never read any economics. And, I think, that's the exact problem you seem to be facing with your essay question there. Too much party, not enough study? Ah, honesty the night before the due date. 123.243.229.92 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC).
Dr. Gibbs's comment on this article
Dr. Gibbs has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
"incentivization" is awkward, not sure it's a real word. Suggest replacing with "optimal incentives".
Holmstrom's "Moral Hazard & Observability", 1979 BJE is a foundational paper in this area which should be cited in the paragraph "The moral hazard model with risk aversion ...".
Akerlof's "The Market for Lemons ...", 1970 QJE, is the foundational paper on Adverse Selection & should be cited & discussed in that paragraph. He shared the Nobel Prize for this paper.
There should be a section on Signalling as there are sections for Moral Hazard & Adverse Selection. Note that all 3 are mentioned in the 2nd paraggraph as "typical situations." Spence's seminal paper should be cited there. Screening might be discussed as a closely related issue.
Suggest adding "Personnel economics" under See Also section. It provides citations on empirical research related to this wiki.
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Gibbs has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
- Reference : Zoghi, Cindy & Levenson, Alec R. & Gibbs, Michael, 2005. "Why Are Jobs Designed the Way They Are?," IZA Discussion Papers 1529, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).