Coase always expressed dissatisfaction with neo-classical economics and advocated for a new approach. Rather than using toy mathematical models built from unrealistic, idealized assumptions, Coase preferred to study real-world contexts, including actual legal cases. He demonstrated the utility of his approach in ‘The Problem of Social Cost’. Yet almost all of Coase's contemporaries completely ignored, Coase's call for a new approach and his sustained use of legal cases to illustrate his arguments and to situate his analysis in reality. In this paper, we show that the profession interpreted Coase's seminal article exactly the opposite of what he had intended, and reduced his analytical contributions to a toy model of the exact sort he was criticizing. This ironic history of the most cited article both in law and in economics helps us understand the development of ideas within both fields and how disciplinary blinders shape intellectual progress.

This article is a tribute to Elinor Ostrom. It explores two enduring lessons she taught: a substantive lesson that involves embracing complexity and context, and a methodological lesson that involves embracing a framework-driven approach to systematic, evolutionary learning through various interdisciplinary methodologies, theories, and empirical approaches. First, I discuss Ostrom's work on environmental commons. I illustrate the two lessons through a discussion of the tragedy of the commons. Next, I explain how the two lessons play a significant role in recent efforts to extend Ostrom's work on environmental commons to knowledge/cultural commons. I draw a parallel between the tragedy of the commons allegory and the free-rider allegory, and show how many of the problems Ostrom explored in the environmental context are manifest in the cultural environmental context. I discuss an ongoing research project that follows the path that Ostrom blazed and systematically studies commons in the cultural environment.