Charles Koch has a management theory called "Market-Based Management" that claims to run the internals of organisations as markets with internal competition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market-Based_Management_Instit...

[NB I'm in the middle of reading "Dark Money" so don't take this as a positive recommendation.]

You might be interested in his recent interview on Freakonomics:

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-...

Just finished it. Much like Koch would say, I walked away with some good things and bad things.

I agreed with the ability to not shackle workers with arbitrary social crimes but, in the end, fell flat.

It seemed like there is no stance too severe that will cause the Koch brothers to not work with you if you support less regulation and restrictions on trade and production.

I had hoped that the podcast would bring up the idea that maybe there is a higher cost being incurred by their activities and relate it to tragedy of the commons. I assume Koch would have dismissed it as speculation and that you can't pin their work to causing environmental damage.

His point of view shouldn't matter. He's work is not a philosophical text, it's an empirically based model that explain a part of a real system. You do see physicists complaining around that, an interpretation of quantum mechanics is a bad one, but it's always in a "it does not really matter" context, the same should apply to economics.

Anyway, some times I wonder if economists shouldn't use nonsense made-up names, like physicists do. Coarse's "transaction costs" include way more than contract settling and money transfer taxes. The use of that meaningful term confuses the hell out of everybody, and we get people talking about simplifying contracts in contexts where the highest costs are around acquiring shared knowledge.

Any more on this subject for further reading / listening?

His original papers are as accessible as popular press. The big ones are “Nature of the Firm” and “The Problem of Social Cost.” For the 2nd one, Coase complained it is used to reach the opposite conclusion than he intended.^

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937....

http://home.cerge-ei.cz/ortmann/UpcesCourse/Coase%20-%20The%...

^Essentially, Coase argues that in the absence of transaction costs, abcd. He meant this as a way of highlighting the importance of transaction costs, with abcd being obviously false in reality. Economists tend to assume efficient markets in their theory, so many read that statement to be boilerplate economist caveats.