Let me give some comments.

(i)Neoclassical GE still can be a benchmark of resource allocation, since NIE has not complete its standard paradigm and united theoretical system. Uncuriously, Dingding agrees with Cheung on the definition of efficiency.

(ii)To be ture, there is no any new implications or models in this article for us today. Two cases in this article both result from Kreps 1990 indirectly or even directly, see my notes for Young's Workshop 11. For example, that Dingding's introduction of "institutional analysis with historical-specificity" is consist with Kreps's Focus Point Principle, also see Schelling 1960.

(iii)It's not because economists donn't want to modeling transaction costs into the general equilibrium theory, but we cannot reach in near future. Also, Arrow has try his best to do that. Wait and see.

Dingding has been following the path actually. In the recent years, Dingding do focus more on his knowledhe economics as a foundamental for game theory. There is a person named Michael Chen who interpreted and commented Dingding's contributions to Game Theory with deep explanations to all Dingding's articles in this field.

I think you can easily find those stuff from net.

I have been to be dingding's student for a year and always found that dingding's some idea are very always interesting.he gave me a short way to go in to the thoreries!

我认为丁丁兄的幸运和不幸都在于，他具有天才的创作力，并且有广泛的知识结构和扎实的数学基础。

这样一来，他就不喜欢专注于一点了，或者这正是“充分理性”的必然吧。

对自己不仅要求杰出，而且要求全面、完美，最终不是成为伟大，就是成为叹息。

我确实很崇拜他。

你是幸运的，跟汪丁丁老师做，会很有收获与成就。