IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrefec/v47y2013i3p466-488.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Group Utility Maximizer Mechanism for Land Assembly

Author

Listed:
  • Usha Sridhar
  • Sridhar Mandyam

Abstract

Buyers requiring large parcels of land for development purposes engage several owners in a bilateral trade seeking monetary payment in exchange for land – a business transaction most often referred to in the literature as the problem of land assembly. To avoid the holdout problem which is a typical consequence of such negotiations necessitates a good pricing strategy that meets the subjective valuation considerations of the owners and protecting property rights to warrant a fair and efficient outcome. Several approaches have been proposed in the literature that includes contributions from game theory in the form of Nash bargaining, Bayesian theory for incomplete information, auction theory and Mechanism Design which have individually enriched this field and proposed credible solutions. In this paper, we consider a setting that has a single buyer and N sellers. We take a Mechanism Design approach to study the assembly problem in a utilitarian framework, where we associate risk-averse utility functions with the sellers. Given a set of reserve prices reported by sellers, and their risk-aversion behaviour, we seek an incentive-compatible mechanism that simultaneously maximizes the sum of individual expected utilities while delivering a Pareto optimal per-seller penalty-reward structure. We show how this mechanism, inspired and adapted from the actuarial Risk Exchange concept in the Insurance industry, can be fruitfully applied to the land assembly problem, yielding an efficient and optimal solution to the holdout problem, while making very minimal demands on knowledge of sellers valuations. The working of the mechanism is illustrated with a simple example. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Usha Sridhar & Sridhar Mandyam, 2013. "A Group Utility Maximizer Mechanism for Land Assembly," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 466-488, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrefec:v:47:y:2013:i:3:p:466-488
    DOI: 10.1007/s11146-012-9370-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11146-012-9370-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11146-012-9370-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Nosal, Ed, 2001. "The taking of land: market value compensation should be paid," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 431-443, December.
    2. Thomas J. Miceli & Kathleen Segerson, 2007. "A Bargaining Model of Holdouts and Takings," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 9(1), pages 160-174.
    3. Hermalin, Benjamin E, 1995. "An Economic Analysis of Takings," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 64-86, April.
    4. Flavio Menezes & Rohan Pitchford, 2004. "A model of seller holdout," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 24(2), pages 231-253, August.
    5. John Cadigan & Pamela Schmitt & Robert Shupp & Kurtis Swope, 2009. "An Experimental Study of the Holdout Problem in a Multilateral Bargaining Game," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 76(2), pages 444-457, October.
    6. Miceli, Thomas J. & Sirmans, C.F., 2007. "The holdout problem, urban sprawl, and eminent domain," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3-4), pages 309-319, November.
    7. Eckart, Wolfgang, 1985. "On the land assembly problem," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 364-378, November.
    8. Grossman, Zachary & Pincus, Jonathan & Shapiro, Perry, 2010. "A Second-Best Mechanism for Land Assembly," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt1dn8g6vk, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
    9. Alessandro Marchesiani & Ed Nosal, 2017. "Private takings," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 19(3), pages 639-657, June.
    10. Edward Clarke, 1971. "Multipart pricing of public goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 17-33, September.
    11. Borch, Karl, 1960. "Reciprocal Reinsurance Treaties," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(4), pages 170-191, December.
    12. 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.
    13. John Cadigan & Pamela Schmitt & Robert Shupp & Kurtis Swope1, 2009. "An Experimental Study of the Holdout Problem in a Multilateral Bargaining Game," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 76(2), pages 344-457, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Isaac, R. Mark & Kitchens, Carl & Portillo, Javier E., 2016. "Can buyer “mobility” reduce aggregation failures in land-assembly?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 16-30.
    2. Portillo, Javier E., 2019. "Land-assembly and externalities: How do positive post-development externalities affect land aggregation outcomes?," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 104-124.

    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. Kurtis Swope & Ryan Wielgus & Pamela Schmitt & John Cadigan, 2011. "Contracts, Behavior, and the Land-assembly Problem: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experiments on Energy, the Environment, and Sustainability, pages 151-180, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    2. John Cadigan & Pamela Schmitt & Robert Shupp & Kurtis Swope, 2009. "An Experimental Study of the Holdout Problem in a Multilateral Bargaining Game," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 76(2), pages 444-457, October.
    3. Cadigan, John & Schmitt, Pamela & Shupp, Robert & Swope, Kurtis, 2011. "The holdout problem and urban sprawl: Experimental evidence," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 72-81, January.
    4. Portillo, Javier E., 2019. "Land-assembly and externalities: How do positive post-development externalities affect land aggregation outcomes?," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 104-124.
    5. Winn, Abel M. & McCarter, Matthew W., 2018. "Who's holding out? An experimental study of the benefits and burdens of eminent domain," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 176-185.
    6. Alessandro Marchesiani & Ed Nosal, 2017. "Private takings," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 19(3), pages 639-657, June.
    7. Parente, Michael D. & Winn, Abel M., 2012. "Bargaining behavior and the tragedy of the anticommons," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 475-490.
    8. Grossman, Zachary & Pincus, Jonathan & Shapiro, Perry & Yengin, Duygu, 2019. "Second-best mechanisms for land assembly and hold-out problems," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 1-16.
    9. Isaac, R. Mark & Kitchens, Carl & Portillo, Javier E., 2016. "Can buyer “mobility” reduce aggregation failures in land-assembly?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 16-30.
    10. Zhongyu He & Yasushi Asami, 2014. "How Do Landowners Price their Lands during Land Expropriation and the Motives Behind It: An Explanation from a WTA/WTP Experiment in Central Beijing," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 51(2), pages 412-427, February.
    11. Dick M. Carpenter II & John K. Ross, 2010. "Do Restrictions on Eminent Domain Harm Economic Development?," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 24(4), pages 337-351, November.
    12. Thomas J. Miceli, 2014. "The Cost of Kelo: Are Property Taxes a Form of Public Use?," Working papers 2014-35, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    13. Thomas Miceli, 2011. "Free riders, holdouts, and public use: a tale of two externalities," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 105-117, July.
    14. Céline Grislain-Letrémy & Bertrand Villeneuve, 2011. "Natural and Industrial Disasters : Land Use and Insurance," Working Papers 2011-32, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    15. Frank Stähler, 2023. "An optimal investor-state dispute settlement mechanism," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 138(1), pages 1-16, January.
    16. Ronald Giammarino & Ed Nosal, 2004. "Loggers vs. campers: compensation for the taking of property rights," Working Papers (Old Series) 0406, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
    17. Emma Aisbett & Larry Karp & Carol Mcausland, 2010. "Police Powers, Regulatory Takings and the Efficient Compensation of Domestic and Foreign Investors," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 86(274), pages 367-383, September.
    18. Sean M. Collins & R. Mark Isaac, 2012. "Holdout: Existence, Information, and Contingent Contracting," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 55(4), pages 793-814.
    19. Thomas J. Miceli & Kathleen Segerson, 2014. "Takings," Working papers 2014-17, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    20. Soumendu Sarkar, 2017. "Mechanism design for land acquisition," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(3), pages 783-812, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Mechanism design; Land assembly; Pareto optimality; Incentive compatibility; Utility functions; Risk-aversion; Risk exchange; JEL Classification; D02; D40; H4; K11;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D02 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Institutions: Design, Formation, Operations, and Impact
    • D40 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - General
    • H4 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods
    • K11 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Property Law

    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:kap:jrefec:v:47:y:2013:i:3:p:466-488. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.