IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ecdequ/v24y2010i4p337-351.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Restrictions on Eminent Domain Harm Economic Development?

Author

Listed:
  • Dick M. Carpenter II

    (Institute for Justice, Arlington, VA, USA, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, CO, USA)

  • John K. Ross

    (Institute for Justice, Arlington, VA, USA)

Abstract

After the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in the Kelo decision the use of eminent domain for private-to-private transfer of property for economic development, public outrage was followed by attempts to restrict such use of eminent domain. Opponents of restrictions predicted dire consequences for state and local economies. This study considers whether restricting the use of eminent domain for economic development results in negative economic effects. The authors examine economic indicators before and after legislative or judicial restrictions on eminent domain across all states and between states based on the type of legislative/judicial change. Results indicate that there appear to be no negative economic consequences resulting from limiting the use of eminent domain when examining economic indicators before and after legislative/judicial change. Adopting either moderate or major eminent domain restrictions appears to create no economic ill effects when analyzing differences in trends based on the type of legislation passed or scope of judicial decision.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ecdequ:v:24:y:2010:i:4:p:337-351
    DOI: 10.1177/0891242410370680
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0891242410370680
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0891242410370680?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chris Papageorgiou & Geoffrey K. Turnbull, 2005. "Economic Development and Property Rights: Time Limits on Land Ownership," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 19(3), pages 271-283, August.
    2. Asami, Yasushi, 1985. "A game-theoretic approach to the division of profits from economic land development," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 233-246, May.
    3. Kevin Fox Gotham, 2001. "A City without Slums: Urban Renewal, Public Housing, and Downtown Revitalization in Kansas City, Missouri," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 285-316, January.
    4. 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.
    5. Rapach, David E. & Strauss, Jack K., 2009. "Differences in housing price forecastability across US states," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 351-372.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Cyril D. Hodgins & J. Ernest Tanner, 1973. "Forecasting Non-residential Building Construction," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 6(1), pages 79-89, February.
    9. David C. Edens, 1970. "Eminent Domain, Equity and the Allocation of Resources," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 46(3), pages 314-322.
    10. Elaine B. Sharp & Donald Haider-Markel, 2008. "At the Invitation of the Court: Eminent Domain Reform in State Legislatures in the Wake of the Kelo Decision," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 38(3), pages 556-575, Summer.
    11. Daron Acemoglu & Simon Johnson, 2005. "Unbundling Institutions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 113(5), pages 949-995, October.
    12. Dua, Pami & Miller, Stephen M & Smyth, David J, 1999. "Using Leading Indicators to Forecast U.S. Home Sales in a Bayesian Vector Autoregressive Framework," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 191-205, March.
    13. Thomas Hyclak & Geraint Johnes, 1999. "original: House prices and regional labor markets," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 33(1), pages 33-49.
    14. Patric H. Hendershott, 1980. "Real User Costs and the Demand for Single-Family Housing," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 11(2), pages 401-452.
    15. 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.
    16. Munch, Patricia, 1976. "An Economic Analysis of Eminent Domain," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 84(3), pages 473-497, June.
    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. Yu, Peiyong, 2015. "The Effect of Eminent Domain on Private and Mixed Development on Property Values," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 45(2).
    2. Paul F. Byrne, 2017. "Have Post-Kelo Restrictions on Eminent Domain Influenced State Economic Development?," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 31(1), pages 81-91, February.

    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. 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.
    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.
    3. 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.
    4. Gupta, Rangan & Kabundi, Alain & Miller, Stephen M., 2011. "Forecasting the US real house price index: Structural and non-structural models with and without fundamentals," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 2013-2021, July.
    5. Kevin Guerin, 2002. "Protection against Government Takings: Compensation for Regulation?," Treasury Working Paper Series 02/18, New Zealand Treasury.
    6. Das, Sonali & Gupta, Rangan & Kabundi, Alain, 2009. "Could we have predicted the recent downturn in the South African housing market?," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 325-335, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Steven Shavell, 2007. "Eminent Domain Versus Government Purchase of Land Given Imperpect Information About Owners' Valuation," NBER Working Papers 13564, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. 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.
    11. Lueck, Dean & Miceli, Thomas J., 2007. "Property Law," Handbook of Law and Economics, in: A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell (ed.), Handbook of Law and Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 3, pages 183-257, Elsevier.
      • Dean Lueck & Thomas J. Miceli, 2004. "Property Law," Working papers 2004-04, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    12. Paul F. Byrne, 2017. "Have Post-Kelo Restrictions on Eminent Domain Influenced State Economic Development?," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 31(1), pages 81-91, February.
    13. Steven Shavell, 2010. "Eminent Domain versus Government Purchase of Land Given Imperfect Information about Owners' Valuations," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(1), pages 1-27, February.
    14. Alfredo Esposto, 1998. "Takings, litigation, and just compensation," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 26(4), pages 397-412, December.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Horn, Henrik & Tangerås, Thomas, 2016. "Economics and Politics of International Investment Agreements," Working Paper Series 1140, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    18. Brennan, Timothy & Boyd, James, 1996. "Pluralism and Regulatory Failure: When Should Takings Trigger Compensation?," RFF Working Paper Series dp-96-09, Resources for the Future.
    19. 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.
    20. Thomas J. Miceli, 2016. "The Cost of Kelo," Public Finance Review, , vol. 44(4), pages 500-522, July.

    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:sae:ecdequ:v:24:y:2010:i:4:p:337-351. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.