Property institutions and the limits of Coase
检验了Arruñada对科斯单一交换框架的批评，通过土地和自然资源案例表明，私有契约并非万能，混合产权制度更常见，但作者认为框架局限源于资产的复杂物理连接而非顺序交换。
Abstract Coase's (1960) contractual single-exchange framework is challenged by Arruñada (2017) as a framework that cannot be used to understand the complex nature of property law and related institutions. Arruñada proposes the sequential exchange model as an alternative framework. Differences between the two approaches are considered and some applications in land and natural resources are used to evaluate his critique. These cases support Arruñada's critique of the simple contracting approach to property, showing that for many natural resources private contracting has not been the solution and that a mix of property institutions govern. Contrary to Arruñada, however, I argue that the limits of the single-exchange framework arise not because of sequential exchange, but because assets (parcels of land) are complex and physically connected.