IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/resene/v30y2008i3p455-473.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Playing monopoly in the creek: Imperfect competition, development, and in-stream flows

Author

Listed:
  • Janmaat, John

Abstract

Land ownership and control of development in new and frontier cities is often concentrated. Local public goods, such as wetlands and riparian habitats, can be adversely affected by development. Regulatory pressure to protect these local public goods may not emerge until after some development has occurred. When development rights are insecure, an incentive exists to accelerate early development, an incentive that increases with the number of firms. Further, multiple equilibria may exist, which can result in large increases in development for small increases in the number of firms. When firms are uncertain about how the regulator values the local public good, development may be further accelerated and there may be even more equilibria.

Suggested Citation

  • Janmaat, John, 2008. "Playing monopoly in the creek: Imperfect competition, development, and in-stream flows," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 455-473, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:resene:v:30:y:2008:i:3:p:455-473
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928-7655(07)00047-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marian Weber & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Tradable Land-Use Rights for Cumulative Environmental Effects Management," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 28(4), pages 581-595, December.
    2. Robert Innes & Stephen Polasky & John Tschirhart, 1998. "Takings, Compensation and Endangered Species Protection on Private Lands," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 35-52, Summer.
    3. Bolle, Friedel, 1986. "On the Oligopolistic Extraction of Non-renewable Common-Pool Resources," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 53(212), pages 519-527, November.
    4. Thomas C. Beierle & David M. Konisky, 2000. "Values, conflict, and trust in participatory environmental planning," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4), pages 587-602.
    5. Faruk Gul, 1987. "Noncooperative Collusion in Durable Goods Oligopoly," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(2), pages 248-254, Summer.
    6. David H. Ciscel, 2001. "The Economics of Urban Sprawl: Inefficiency as a Core Feature of Metropolitan Growth," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 405-413, June.
    7. Rosegrant, Mark W., 1997. "Water resources in the twenty-first century: challenges and implications for action," 2020 vision discussion papers 20, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    8. Berrens, Robert P. & Bohara, Alok K. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Silva, Carol L. & Ganderton, Philip & Brookshire, David, 1998. "A joint investigation of public support and public values: case of instream flows in New Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 189-203, November.
    9. Mark Lubell, 2004. "Collaborative environmental institutions: All talk and no action?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 549-573.
    10. Henderson, Vernon & Mitra, Arindam, 1996. "The new urban landscape: Developers and edge cities," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 613-643, December.
    11. Carlo Carraro & Carmen Marchiori & Alessandra Sgobbi, 2005. "Applications of Negotiation Theory to Water Issues," Working Papers 2005.65, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    12. Malueg, David A & Solow, John L, 1990. "Monopoly Production of Durable Exhaustible Resources," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 57(225), pages 29-47, February.
    13. Marcy Burchfield & Henry G. Overman & Diego Puga & Matthew A. Turner, 2006. "Causes of Sprawl: A Portrait from Space," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 587-633.
    14. Karp, Larry, 1992. "Social Welfare in a Common Property Oligopoly," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 33(2), pages 353-372, May.
    15. Adams, Gregory & Rausser, Gordon & Simon, Leo, 1996. "Modelling multilateral negotiations: An application to California water policy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 97-111, July.
    16. William D. Leach & Neil W. Pelkey & Paul A. Sabatier, 2002. "Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(4), pages 645-670.
    17. J. M. Hartwick & P. A. Sadorsky, 1990. "Duopoly in Exhaustible Resource Exploration and Extraction," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 23(2), pages 276-293, May.
    18. Innes, Robert, 1997. "Takings, Compensation, and Equal Treatment for Owners of Developed and Undeveloped Property," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(2), pages 403-432, October.
    19. Walls, Margaret & McConnell, Virginia & Kopits, Elizabeth, 2003. "How Well Can Markets for Development Rights Work? Evaluating a Farmland Preservation Program," RFF Working Paper Series dp-03-08, Resources for the Future.
    20. Mills, David E., 1980. "Transferable development rights markets," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 63-74, January.
    21. Fischel, William A., 2001. "Homevoters, Municipal Corporate Governance, and the Benefit View of the Property Tax," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 54(n. 1), pages 157-74, March.
    22. John T. Daubert & Robert A. Young, 1981. "Recreational Demands for Maintaining Instream Flows: A Contingent Valuation Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 63(4), pages 666-676.
    23. Michael P Johnson, 2001. "Environmental Impacts of Urban Sprawl: A Survey of the Literature and Proposed Research Agenda," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 33(4), pages 717-735, April.
    24. Lopez, R., 2004. "Urban sprawl and risk for being overweight or obese," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 94(9), pages 1574-1579.
    25. Riddiough, Timothy J., 1997. "The Economic Consequences of Regulatory Taking Risk on Land Value and Development Activity," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 56-77, January.
    26. Burness, H Stuart & Quirk, James P, 1979. "Appropriative Water Rights and the Efficient Allocation of Resources," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(1), pages 25-37, March.
    27. Irwin, Elena G. & Bockstael, Nancy E., 2004. "Land use externalities, open space preservation, and urban sprawl," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 705-725, November.
    28. Levinson, Arik, 1997. "Why oppose TDRs?: Transferable development rights can increase overall development," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 283-296, June.
    29. Harold Hotelling, 1931. "The Economics of Exhaustible Resources," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39, pages 137-137.
    30. Henderson, Vernon & Becker, Randy, 2000. "Political Economy of City Sizes and Formation," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 453-484, November.
    31. Barry C. Field & Jon M. Conrad, 1975. "Economic Issues in Programs of Transferable Development Rights," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 51(4), pages 331-340.
    32. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1972. "A Generalized Nash Solution for Two-Person Bargaining Games with Incomplete Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5-Part-2), pages 80-106, January.
    33. GP Green & JP O'Connor, 2001. "Water Banking And Restoration Of Endangered Species Habitat: An Application To The Snake River," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 19(2), pages 225-237, April.
    34. Booker J. F. & Young R. A., 1994. "Modeling Intrastate and Interstate Markets for Colorado River Water Resources," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 66-87, January.
    35. Fischel, William A., 2001. "Homevoters, Municipal Corporate Governance, and the Benefit View of the Property Tax," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 54(1), pages 157-174, March.
    36. Reinganum, Jennifer F & Stokey, Nancy L, 1985. "Oligopoly Extraction of a Common Property Natural Resource: The Importance of the Period of Commitment in Dynamic Games," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 26(1), pages 161-173, February.
    37. Lawrence Blume & Daniel L. Rubinfeld & Perry Shapiro, 1984. "The Taking of Land: When Should Compensation Be Paid?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 99(1), pages 71-92.
    38. Johannes Horner & Morton I. Kamien, 2004. "Coase and Hotelling: A Meeting of the Minds," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(3), pages 718-723, June.
    39. Ronald C. Griffin & Shih-Hsun Hsu, 1993. "The Potential for Water Market Efficiency When Instream Flows Have Value," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(2), pages 292-303.
    40. Ewing, R. & Schieber, R.A. & Zegeer, C.V., 2003. "Urban Sprawl as a Risk Factor in Motor Vehicle Occupant and Pedestrian Fatalities," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(9), pages 1541-1545.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Janmaat, Johannus A., 2007. "Stakeholder Engagement in Land Development Decisions: A Waste of Effort?," MPRA Paper 6147, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Polasky, Stephen & Costello, Christopher & Solow, Andrew, 2005. "The Economics of Biodiversity," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 29, pages 1517-1560, Elsevier.
    3. McConnell, Virginia & Walls, Margaret & Kopits, Elizabeth, 2006. "Zoning, TDRs and the density of development," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 440-457, May.
    4. Thomas J. Miceli & Kathleen Segerson, 2011. "Regulatory Takings," Working papers 2011-16, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    5. McConnell, Virginia D. & Kopits, Elizabeth & Walls, Margaret, 2005. "Farmland Preservation and Residential Density: Can Development Rights Markets Affect Land Use?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 34(2), pages 1-14, October.
    6. David Gálvez Ruiz & Pilar Diaz Cuevas & Olta Braçe & Marco Garrido-Cumbrera, 2018. "Developing an Index to Measure Sub-municipal Level Urban Sprawl," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 929-952, December.
    7. Frederick Ploeg, 2011. "Rapacious Resource Depletion, Excessive Investment and Insecure Property Rights: A Puzzle," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 105-128, January.
    8. Burness, H. Stuart & Brill, Thomas C., 2001. "The role for policy in common pool groundwater use," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 19-40, January.
    9. Christian Hilber & Frédéric Robert-Nicoud, 2006. "Owners of Developed Land versus Owners of Undeveloped Land: Why Land Use is More Constrained in the Bay Area than in Pittsburgh," CEP Discussion Papers dp0760, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    10. Karp, Larry, 1992. "Efficiency Inducing Tax for a Common Property Oligopoly," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 102(411), pages 321-332, March.
    11. Robert Innes & George Frisvold, 2009. "The Economics of Endangered Species," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 485-512, September.
    12. De Vos, Jonas & Witlox, Frank, 2013. "Transportation policy as spatial planning tool; reducing urban sprawl by increasing travel costs and clustering infrastructure and public transportation," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 117-125.
    13. Jiang, Yong & Swallow, Stephen K., 2017. "Impact Fees Coupled With Conservation Payments to Sustain Ecosystem Structure: A Conceptual and Numerical Application at the Urban-Rural Fringe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 136-147.
    14. Rasmus Noss, Bang & Trellevik, Lars-Kristian Lunde, 2022. "Transition to Marine Mining?," Discussion Papers 2022/9, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    15. repec:ags:ubzefd:148054 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Winfree, Jason A. & McCluskey, Jill J., 2007. "Takings of development rights with asymmetric information and an endogenous probability of an externality," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3-4), pages 320-333, November.
    17. Walls, Margaret & McConnell, Virginia & Kopits, Elizabeth, 2003. "How Well Can Markets for Development Rights Work? Evaluating a Farmland Preservation Program," RFF Working Paper Series dp-03-08, Resources for the Future.
    18. Walls, Margaret, 2012. "Markets for Development Rights: Lessons Learned from Three Decades of a TDR Program," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-49, Resources for the Future.
    19. Walls, Margaret & McConnell, Virginia D., 2004. "Incentive-Based Land Use Policies and Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay," Discussion Papers 10843, Resources for the Future.
    20. Hans-Bernd Schäfer & Ram Singh, 2018. "Takings of Land by Self-Interested Governments: Economic Analysis of Eminent Domain," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(3), pages 427-459.
    21. Christian A. L Hilber & Jan Rouwendal & Wouter Vermeulen, 2021. "Local economic conditions and the nature of new housing supply," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 339-366.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:resene:v:30:y:2008:i:3:p:455-473. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505569 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.