{"title":"The medieval church as an economic firm?","authors":"David d’Avray","doi":"10.1007/s11127-024-01198-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A school of economic historians argues that the medieval church was an economic firm: not metaphorically, but literally. Their work has been virtually ignored by professional medieval historians, but it has been published by Oxford University Press and the University of Chicago Press, so it does deserve attention. Conversely, it would be healthy for economists and public choice scholars to get reactions from a historian. There appears to have been a wall between the two disciplines, an unhealthy situation. The economists discussed here see the medieval Church as a “multi-divisional firm”, “characterized by a central office [the papacy] that controls overall financial allocations and conducts strategic, long-range planning, but allows divisions (usually regional) a high degree of autonomy in day-to-day operations” (<i>ST</i> 1996: 20). In fact, the medieval church was a multitude of discrete systems within a common legal framework. It was certainly not an “economic firm”.</p>","PeriodicalId":48322,"journal":{"name":"Public Choice","volume":"67 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Choice","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-024-01198-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
A school of economic historians argues that the medieval church was an economic firm: not metaphorically, but literally. Their work has been virtually ignored by professional medieval historians, but it has been published by Oxford University Press and the University of Chicago Press, so it does deserve attention. Conversely, it would be healthy for economists and public choice scholars to get reactions from a historian. There appears to have been a wall between the two disciplines, an unhealthy situation. The economists discussed here see the medieval Church as a “multi-divisional firm”, “characterized by a central office [the papacy] that controls overall financial allocations and conducts strategic, long-range planning, but allows divisions (usually regional) a high degree of autonomy in day-to-day operations” (ST 1996: 20). In fact, the medieval church was a multitude of discrete systems within a common legal framework. It was certainly not an “economic firm”.
期刊介绍：
Public Choice deals with the intersection between economics and political science. The journal was founded at a time when economists and political scientists became interested in the application of essentially economic methods to problems normally dealt with by political scientists. It has always retained strong traces of economic methodology, but new and fruitful techniques have been developed which are not recognizable by economists. Public Choice therefore remains central in its chosen role of introducing the two groups to each other, and allowing them to explain themselves through the medium of its pages.
Officially cited as: Public Choice
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
