This paper engages two theories about the form and function of institutions, the “credibility thesis” offered by Peter Ho (2014, 2017, 2018) and the paradigmatic Coase Theorem, in two versions formulated by George J. Stigler and Steven N.S. Cheung and recognised by Ronald H. Coase (1988). The joint consideration of these two influential theories was predicated on the fact that the former, with its hallmark being “function trumps form” (Vatn 2023), is said to embrace institutional arrangements as endogenous, while the latter treats them as policy variables. This paper, interpreting the internal logic of the credibility thesis in its best possible light, explains that as a policy tool it is compatible with the contingent, comparative and case-by-case thinking of the Coase Theorem, as pointed out by Harold Demsetz (1969), although users of the former have launched an unfortunate and unsubstantiated attack on neo-institutional economics (NIE) likely based on a misinterpretation of primary sources.

中文翻译：

---

可信度论文在形式和功能上与 Coase 定理相遇


本文涉及两个关于机构形式和功能的理论，一个是何彼得（Peter Ho，2014、2017、2018）提出的“可信度论”，另一个是由George J. Stigler和Steven N.S. Cheung提出并得到Ronald H. Coase（1988）认可的范式科斯定理。对这两个有影响力的理论的共同考虑是基于这样一个事实，即前者以其“功能胜于形式”（Vatn 2023）为标志，据说将制度安排视为内生性，而后者则将其视为政策变量。本文以最佳方式解释了可信度论点的内在逻辑，解释了作为一种政策工具，它与 Harold Demsetz （1969） 所指出的科斯定理的偶然、比较和逐案思考是兼容的，尽管前者的使用者对新制度经济学 （NIE） 发起了不幸且未经证实的攻击，这可能是基于对原始资料的误解。