我的父亲，是一个有条理的人，在他的日记中记录我在1910年12月29日3点25分出生，地点是伦敦郊区威尔斯敦一所两层楼的房子，我的父母住在下层。我的父亲是邮局的一个电报员。我的母亲曾在邮局就业，但结婚后辞去工作。我的父母都在12岁离开学校。他们对学习方面没有兴趣。他们的兴趣在体育运动方面。我的母亲打网球直打到到很大年龄。我的父亲年轻时玩足球、板球和网球，玩(草坪)滚木球直到去逝。他是一名好球手，他代表当地参加一些比赛获胜。他为当地报纸及《滚木球新闻》写滚木球的文章。

我有通常男孩子的运动兴趣，但是我的主要兴趣总在学术方面。我是一个独生子，虽然常常是一个人，但从不孤独。在我学国际象棋的时候，乐于轮流扮演玩棋的每一方。缺乏指导，我就从当地公共图书馆借书阅读，这是没有选择的。现在我知道，当时我不能区分学术骗子和严肃的学者。我的母亲教我诚实可靠，虽则不能免于某种程度的自欺欺人，我相信，我努力遵循她的教训，这给我的写作以某种力量。我的母亲心目中的英雄是鄂茨上校，他和斯考特从南极回来，发现他的病妨碍别人，他就告诉他的伙伴们他去散步，在暴风雪中走出去，再无踪迹。这对我影响很大，我总是感到我不应该让别人讨厌，但是对此我并非总能成功。

我11岁时被父亲带到一位看骨相的人那里。我能肯定，那位看骨相的人对我的个性的说法，决定于我的颅骨形状少，决定于从我的行为得到的印象的多。在他的小书中印刷了各种个性的总结，他为“龙纳德.科斯少爷”选择的总结是：“你有许多智慧，而且你知道它，虽然你可能倾向于低估你的才能。”这个印刷的总结也包括以下的话：“你不会像一条有病的鱼随湖水沉下去......你享有很大精神而不是别人手里的一个被动工具。虽然你看到对你有利时可以和其他人和为其他人工作，你更倾向于为你自己思想和工作。不过，决心稍大一些可能对你有利。”在书面评论中，对我建议的职业是：“科学和商业、银行、会计以及园艺和养鸡作为业余爱好。”对我的个性补充了一些评论：“更多希望、信任和专心┉┉ 不适合商业生活中的竞争性方面。或许更加积极的雄心可能更有益。”他也注意到我太小心。他甚至难以预期这个腼腆的小男孩有一天会是一项诺贝尔奖的接受者。发生这件事是一系列偶然事件的结果。

作为一个青年男孩，我的腿有病。需要或被认为需要在腿上加铁件，于是我去地方委员会办的残疾人学校。由于我记不起来的原因，错过了通常在11岁时去地方中学的入学考试。不过，由于我父母的努力，在12岁时被允许参加中学奖学金考试。我现在赢得的唯一事情是在口试时，把莎士比亚“第十二夜”中的一个人物称为麦克伏里奥，引起一些笑声。但这个失误不是致命的，我被授予奖学金，进入契尔伯文法学校。那里的教学很好，我得到扎实的教育。我特别记得我们的地理都是查理·寿斯顿，他将魏根纳的大陆漂移假设介绍给我们，他还带我们去听皇家地理学会的讲演，其中有一次讨论关于河流弯曲，地球转动对河道的影响。1927年我参加大学入学考试通过，历史和化学成绩优异。

那时在大学入学考试之后，可在契尔伯文法学校学习两年，作为伦敦大学的校外学生，参加大学的中间考试，也可以在文法学校内一年级工作。那时我必须决定读什么学位，事实上我被塑造我一生的那些偶然事件之一所决定。我倾向于得到一个历史学位，但是发现要这样做必须懂拉丁文，而我因12岁进契尔伯文法学校，没有学上拉丁文所以我转向我有优异成绩的化学，并开始为这一科学学位学习。后来发现数学是这一科学学位的必修课，不合我的口胃，于是转到商业学位上。虽然我对考试科目学习的知识是粗浅的，不是通过了中间考试，并于1929年10月去伦敦经济学院继续商学士学位的学习。我为最终考试第I部分学习许多课程，在1930年考试通过。

我的第II部分专业在工业组。那时我交了一次特别的好运，这是影响我以后所做的每一件事的另一个偶然因素。以前在南非开普敦大学任教授的阿诺德·普兰特在1930年被任命为伦敦经济学院商业教授(特别讲授工商管理)。我听他的工商管理讲演，最终在考试前5个月开始参加他的讨论班，他在讨论班说的话，改变了我对经济系统运转的见解，或许更准确地说是给了我一个见解。普兰特做的事是将亚当.斯密的“看不见的手”介绍给我。他使我了解一个竞争经济系统如何可以被定价系统协调。他不仅影响我的思想，他还改变了我的一生。在1931年我最终通过了商学士考试的第III部分。我已在文法学校作了一年的大学工作，在可以授予一个学位之前，要求在伦敦经济学院住三年。我必须决定在这第三年做什么。在我为第III部分学习中，发现最有趣的题目是工业法，我曾决定做的事是在这第三年为科学士(经济学)学位学习，以工业法为我的专题。如果我那样做，我将无疑地变成一名律师。但是那件事没有发生。这是普兰特影响的结果。伦敦大学授予我实际上我并不知道的一笔欧奈斯·卡赛尔爵士旅行奖学金，这使我走上了变为一位经济学家的道路。

依靠卡赛尔旅行奖金，我在美国度过1931-1932学年。那时我研究美国工业的结构，目的在发现工业为什么以不同方式组织起来。我主要靠访问工厂和企业进行这个项目。我的调查研究不是用以回答我有疑问的理论问题，而在经济分析中引入一个新概念——交易费用，以及对为什么有企业的一个解释。我在敦第所做的讲演的内容，都是我在1932年调查中完成的。这些思想成为1937年我发表的“企业的性质”文章的基础。瑞典皇家科学院授予我1991年经济科学阿尔弗雷德·诺贝尔纪念奖时引用了这篇文章的内容。还有一部分由于我不愿急于付印，也由于我忙于教学和其他项目的研究工作，而被延迟发表。

1934-1935年我在利物浦大学， 1935年第二次世界大战爆发， 1940年我进政府做统计工作，先在森林委员会，然后在中央统计局，战时内阁办公室。1946年我回到伦敦经济学院。那时我负责主要经济学课程——经济学原理，并且继续对公用事业特别是邮局和广播事业的研究，我借助于一笔洛克菲勒研究员经费在美国花费了9个月研究美国广播业。我的书《美国广播业：垄断的研究》，在1950年出版。

1951年我移民到美国。先到布法罗大学，1959年，在行为科学高等中心工作一年之后，我加入维吉尼亚大学经济学系。我对联邦通信委员会作了研究，它管制美国广播业，包括配置无线电频率谱。我写了一篇文章，在1959年发表，讨论委员会遵循的程序，并且提议如果频率谱的利用由定价系统确定而给予出价最高人将更好。这一点引起成功的投标人将得到什么权利的疑问，我从事讨论一个财产权系统的合理性研究。芝加哥大学的一些经济学家认为我的论点有一部分是错的，我们约好一个晚上在亚伦狄拉特家里会面。斯蒂格勒和其他人曾描写过这以后发生的事。我说服这些经济学家们我是对的，他们要我写出我的论点在《法律与经济学》杂志上发表。虽然在联邦通信委员会中已能找到主要论点，但我还是另写了一篇文章“社会成本问题”，在这篇文章中更详细、更精确地阐明我的见解，1961年初发表的这篇文章，不像我以前发表“企业的性质”的文章，它立即得到成功。并继续被进行热烈地讨论。说实在的它大概是全部现代经济学文献中被最广泛援引的两篇文章，作为授予我阿尔弗雷德·诺贝尔纪念奖的理由。如果不是芝加哥大学的这些经济学家认为在我的“联邦通信委员会”一文中我有一个错误，可能永远不会写“社会成本问题”的文章。

1964年我迁到芝加哥大学并且成为《法律和经济学》的主编，直至1982年。主编这个杂志是一个很大满足。我经济学家们和律师们写实际市场如何操作，以及政府如何实际管制或进行经济活动。杂志是创设新专业“法律和经济学”的一个主要因素。我的一生是有趣的，关心学术事业，而且整个看是成功的。但是在我几乎操作的一切，决非是我个人的选择。“伟大强加于我”。

 

 

 

Ronald H. Coase

Prize in Literature Nobel Peace Prize Prize in Economics Ronald H. Coase

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1991

 

Autobiography

My father, a methodical man, recorded in his diary that I was born at 3:25 p.m.

on December 29th, 1910. The place was a house, containing two flats of which my

parents occupied the lower, in a suburb of London, Willesden. My father was a

telegraphist in the Post Office. My mother had been employed in the Post Office

but ceased to work on being married. Both my parents had left school at the age

of 12 but were completely literate. However, they had no interest in academic

scholarship. Their interest was in sport. My mother played tennis until an

advanced age. My father, who played football, cricket and tennis while young,

played (lawn) bowls until his death. He was a good player, played for his county

and won a number of competitions. He wrote articles on bowls for the local

newspaper and for Bowls News.

 

I had the usual boy's interest in sport but my main interest was always

academic. I was an only child but although often alone, I was never lonely. When

I learnt chess, I was happy to play the role of each player in turn. Lacking

guidance, my reading (in books borrowed from the local public library) was

undiscriminating and, as I now realize, I was unable to distinguish the

charlatan from the serious scholar. My mother taught me to be honest and

truthful and although it is impossible to escape some degree of self-deception,

my endeavours to follow her precepts have, I believe, lent some strength to my

writing. My mother's hero was Captain Oates, who, returning with Scott from the

South Pole and finding that his illness was hampering the others, told his

companions that he was going for a stroll, went out into a blizzard and was

never heard of again. I have always felt that I should not be a bother to others

but in this I have not always succeeded.

 

Aged 11, I was taken by my father to a phrenologist. What the phrenologist said

about my character was, I feel sure, determined less by the shape of my skull

than by the impressions he derived from my behaviour. Out of the various printed

summaries of character in his booklet, that chosen for "Master Ronald Coase"

started: "You are in possession of much intelligence, and you know it, though

you may be inclined to underrate your abilities." This printed summary also

included the following remarks: "You will not float down, like a sickly fish,

with the tide... you enjoy considerable mental vigour and are not a passive

instrument in the hands of others. Though you can work with others and for

others, where you see it to your advantage, you are more inclined to think and

work for yourself. A little more determination would be to your advantage,

however." In the written comments, the pursuits recommended were: "Scientific

and commercial banking, accountancy. Also, horticulture and poultry-rearing as

hobbies." Added were some comments about my character: "More hope, confidence

and concentration required - not suited for the aggressive competitive side of

business life. More active ambition would be beneficial." It was also noted that

I was too cautious. It was hardly to be expected that this timid little boy

would one day be the recipient of a Nobel Prize. That this happened was the

result of a series of accidents.

 

As a young boy I suffered from a weakness in my legs, which necessitated, or was

thought to necessitate, the wearing of irons on my legs. As a result I went to

the school for physical defectives run by the local council. For reasons that I

do not remember I missed taking the entrance examinations for the local

secondary school at the usual age of 11. However, as the result of the efforts

of my parents I was allowed to take the secondary school scholarship examination

at the age of 12. The only thing I now remember is that at the oral examination

I caused some amusement by referring to a character in Shakespeare's Twelfth

Night as Macvolio. However, this lapse was not fatal and I was awarded a

scholarship to go to the Kilburn Grammar School. The teaching there was good and

I received a solid education. I particularly remember our geography teacher,

Charles Thurston, who introduced us to Wegener's hypothesis on the movements of

the continents long before it was generally accepted and who also took us to

lectures at the Royal Geographical Society, one of which, on river meanders,

discussed the effect of the earth's rotation on the course of rivers. I took the

matriculation examination in 1927, which I passed, with distinction in history

and chemistry.

 

It was then possible to spend the two years after matriculation at the Kilburn

Grammar School studying for the intermediate examination of the University of

London as an external student, which covered the work which would have been

taken during the first year at the University as an internal student. I then had

to decide what degree to take. The answer was in fact determined by one of those

accidental factors which seem to have shaped my life. My inclination was to take

a degree in history, but I found that to do this I would have to know Latin and

having arrived at the Kilburn Grammar School at 12 instead of 11, there had been

no possibility of my studying Latin. So I turned to the other subject in which I

had secured distinction and started to study for a science degree, specialising

in chemistry. However, I soon found that mathematics, a requirement for a

science degree, was not to my taste and I switched to the only other degree for

which it was possible to study at the Kilburn Grammar School, one in commerce.

Although my knowledge of the subjects on which I was examined was rudimentary, I

managed to pass the intermediate examinations and went to the London School of

Economics in October, 1929 to continue my studies for a Bachelor of Commerce

degree. I took a hodgepodge of courses for Part I of the final examination,

which I passed in 1930.

 

For Part II, I specialised in the Industry Group. I then had an extraordinary

stroke of luck, another accidental factor which would affect everything I was to

do subsequently. Arnold Plant, who had previously held a chair at the University

of Cape Town, South Africa, was appointed Professor of Commerce (with special

reference to Business Administration) at the London School of Economics in 1930.

I attended his lectures on business administration but it was what he said in

his seminar, which I started to attend only five months before the final

examinations, that was to change my view of the working of the economic system,

or perhaps more accurately was to give me one. What Plant did was to introduce

me to Adam Smith's "invisible hand". He made me aware of how a competitive

economic system could be coordinated by the pricing system. But he did not

merely influence my ideas. My encountering him changed my life. I passed the B.

Com, Part II final examination in 1931, but having taken the first year of

University work while still at school and three years residence at the London

School of Economics being required before a degree could be awarded, I had to

decide what to do in this third year. Among the subjects studied for Part II,

the one I had found most interesting was Industrial Law and what I had decided

to do was to study in this third year for the degree of B.Sc. (Econ), with

Industrial Law as my special subject. Had I done so I would undoubtedly have

gone on to become a lawyer. But that was not to be. No doubt as a result of

Plant's influence, the University of London awarded me a Sir Ernest Cassel

Travelling Scholarship and although I did not know it, I was on the road to

becoming an economist.

 

I spent the academic year 1931-32 on my Cassel Travelling Scholarship in the

United States studying the structure of American industries, with the aim of

discovering why industries were organized in different ways. I carried out this

project mainly by visiting factories and businesses. What came out of my

enquiries was not a complete theory answering the questions with which I started

but the introduction of a new concept into economic analysis, transaction costs,

and an explanation of why there are firms. All this was achieved by the Summer

of 1932, as the contents of a lecture delivered in Dundee in October 1932, make

clear. These ideas became the basis for my article "The Nature of the Firm",

published in 1937, cited by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in awarding me

the 1991 Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. The delay in

publishing my ideas was partly due to a reluctance to rush into print and partly

to the fact that I was heavily engaged in teaching and research on other

projects. I held a teaching position at the Dundee School of Economics and

Commerce from 1932 to 1934, at the University of Liverpool from 1934 to 1935 and

at the London School of Economics from 1935 on. At the London School of

Economics I was assigned a course on the economics of public utilities in

Britain. In 1939, the Second World War broke out and in 1940 I entered

government service doing statistical work, first at the Forestry Commission and

then at the Central Statistical Office, Offices of the War Cabinet. I returned

to the London School of Economics in 1946. I then became responsible for the

main economics course, "The Principles of Economics", and also continued with my

research on public utilities, particularly the Post Office and broadcasting. I

spent nine months in 1948 in the United States on a Rockefeller Fellowship

studying the American broadcasting industry. My book, British Broadcasting: A

Study in Monopoly, was published in 1950.

 

In 1951, I migrated to the United States. I went first to the University of

Buffalo and in 1959, after a year at the Center for Advanced Study in the

Behavioral Sciences, I joined the economics department of the University of

Virginia. I maintained my interest in public utilities and particularly in

broadcasting and during my year at the Center for Advanced Study in the

Behavioral Sciences, I made a study of the Federal Communications Commission

which regulated the broadcasting industry in the United States, including the

allocation of the radio frequency spectrum. I wrote an article, published in

1959, which discussed the procedures followed by the Commission and suggested

that it would be better if use of the spectrum was determined by the pricing

system and was awarded to the highest bidder. This raised the question of what

rights would be acquired by the successful bidder and I went on to discuss the

rationale of a property rights system. Part of my argument was considered to be

erroneous by a number of economists at the University of Chicago and it was

arranged that I should meet with them one evening at Aaron Director's home. What

ensued has been described by Stigler and others. I persuaded these economists

that I was right and I was asked to write up my argument for publication in the

Journal of Law and Economics. Although the main points were already to be found

in The Federal Communications Commission, I wrote another article, The Problem

of Social Cost, in which I expounded my views at greater length, more precisely

and without reference to my previous article. This article, which appeared early

in 1961, unlike my earlier article on "The Nature of the Firm", was an instant

success. It was, and continues to be, much discussed. Indeed it is probably the

most widely cited article in the whole of the modern economic literature. It,

and The Nature of the Firm were the two articles cited by the Royal Swedish

Academy of Sciences as justification for awarding me the Alfred Nobel Memorial

Prize. Had it not been for the fact that these economists at the University of

Chicago thought that I had made an error in my article on The Federal

Communications Commission, it is probable that The Problem of Social Cost would

never have been written.

 

In 1964, I moved to the University of Chicago and became editor of the Journal

of Law and Economics. I continued as editor until 1982. Editorship of the

journal was a source of great satisfaction. I encouraged economists and lawyers

to write about the way in which actual markets operated and about how

governments actually perform in regulating or undertaking economic activities.

The journal was a major factor in creating the new subject, "law and economics".

My life has been interesting, concerned with academic affairs and on the whole

successful. But, on almost all occasions, what I have done has been determined

by factors which were no part of my choosing. I have had "greatness thrust upon

me".