Talk:Hold-up problem

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Reasons for the above proposal:
:1. The recent add at the end of the first paragraph here quotes a major article on the hold-up problem as being the  "most influential work" in recent decades on why firms exist and what determines their boundaries.  Yet it is mentioned only in passing in that article.  Surely it deserves greater development there.  This article provides it in at least a minimal way. Anything beyond minimal treatment there would likely exceed the current Hold-up problem article, raising a question of merger later.  
:2. This article remains a stub after 5 years. "Page View Statistics" at the history tab for the articles show about triple the number of views at "Theory of the firm".
:3. People linking to this article would go directly to the relevant section for a merge. 
:4. A copy of the history of this article could be posted on Talk:Theory of the firm. 
In the absence of a consensus against merger, I'd propose merging this article into "Theory of the firm" in a month.  I hope that there would be support for the proposal.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the merger is appropriate. The hold-up problem is a general problem, which I've seen come up less often in discussion of within-firm dynamics or existence-of-the-firm issues and more often in the context of industrial organization and contracts. It deserves to have its own article, even if the article is a stub, rather than being merged into an article with a significant intersection, but not a superset. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  Sorry for the delay.  I wished to secure first a relevant reference before responding. "Boundaries" of the firm includes the balance of contractual and bargaining relations of the firm with other agents as to specific investment, of which the hold-up problem is an example.  Placement of the hold-up problem (if not the "Hold-up problem" article) in Theory of the firm is consistent with that. So is the placement of the subsection 'Specific Investment and the Holdup Problem' in Jean Tirole's much-cited book, The Theory of Industrial Organization, in particular, in "The Theory of the Firm" chapter, pp. 24-27 with other references to hold-up either in or referring to this chapter (pp. 16, 34, 401, 434).  So, I don't see omission of the hold-up problem as a very good option.   Do you see any problem with a couple of paragraphs on the hold-up problem in Theory of the firm?  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge [[Hold-up problem]] into [[Theory of the firm]] in a month 

message: 2 of the 3 examples given, the bit about South Africa and the bit about Saddam Hussein, have nothing to do with economics or bargaining power and are simply about trust and threats.  Like "the enemy soldier didn't want to be taken prisoner...because the enemy might kill him!" basically...clearly not an illustration of the given economic-related phenomenon.  "Hold up problem" as a term does NOT mean "I held up on doing something because something bad might happen."
Yes I could edit them out, but I've seen so many misguided reversions that I think it's better to leave this on the Talk page and then close my browser tab. RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 of 3 examples are not really examples, and not related to economics