Coase v Pigou reexamined

Coase's thesis in ''The Problem of Social Cost'' is reexamined, with particular reference to criticisms of Pigou as an enthusiast for state intervention and to Cease's understanding of the history of English tort law; the litigation in Sturges v. Bridgman illustrates the analysis. Pigou is defended, and his function as a straw man in a rhetorical form of argument described. An analysis of Coase's thesis-that Pigou perpetrated a fundamental error in analysis-when related to the realities of land use disputes between neighbors suggests that the logic of the Coasean theory as to the correct analysis in terms of efficiency is incapable of generating any general rule as to what should be the legal response to the problem of social cost, Unless certain problems can be solved, it cannot provide guidance for the law.