Yes but tractability and efficiency are different things.
Consider for instance what happened in networking. One could argue that switched networks fit the encapsulation-of-resources paradigm to a T yet they are giving way to packet-based networks, which are much more efficient.

Say more! There's an important underlying thread in the coordination debate as to whether packet-switching essential, at all levels.

I'm a little confused. You can have a strict market paradigm in a switched network, and an almost egalitarian peering mechanism for packet-based networks, or vice versa. You can even tinker with the parameters to argue that one is more efficient than the other. Both structures demand very different *institutions* to create the underlying mechanism--market or otherwise. What is the heart of the matter, here?

Allan,
you are going beyond where I was looking there. A recent debate over on cap-talk and some of my own musings are looking at whether we've made a mistake in our concentration on connection networking at the higher layer instead of packet networking. As the network supports both equally well, I don't see that there is a *current* institutional question to answer, although it certainly raises an interesting line of thought... If one did need an institutional model and had to choose between the two technical approaches for networking, which would one choose?

More, I'm interested in whether the Hayekian approach throws any light on the efficiency aspects of packets versus connections.