IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ecdequ/v27y2013i4p352-362.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Use of Eminent Domain for Economic Development in the Era of Kelo

Author

Listed:
  • Steven P. Lanza
  • Thomas J. Miceli
  • C. F. Sirmans
  • Moussa Diop

Abstract

The Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London (2005) authorized the use of eminent domain for economic redevelopment provided that there are sufficient spillover benefits to the public. This article examines the economic basis for this decision and tests the conclusions using cross-state data on “development takings†over the period 1998 to 2002. It also examines the political responses by states to limit such takings in the aftermath of Kelo . The results are consistent with the economic justification for eminent domain as a means of overcoming the holdout problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven P. Lanza & Thomas J. Miceli & C. F. Sirmans & Moussa Diop, 2013. "The Use of Eminent Domain for Economic Development in the Era of Kelo," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 27(4), pages 352-362, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ecdequ:v:27:y:2013:i:4:p:352-362
    DOI: 10.1177/0891242413493661
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0891242413493661
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0891242413493661?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. Cohen, Lloyd, 1991. "Holdouts and Free Riders," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(2), pages 351-362, June.
    2. Turnbull Geoffrey K & Salvino Robert F., 2009. "Do Broader Eminent Domain Powers Increase Government Size?," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 785-806, December.
    3. Carrie B. Kerekes, 2011. "Government Takings: Determinants of Eminent Domain," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 201-219.
    4. Fischel, William A., 1995. "The offer/ask disparity and just compensation for takings: A constitutional choice perspective," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 187-203, June.
    5. Glaeser, Edward L. & Saks, Raven E., 2006. "Corruption in America," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(6-7), pages 1053-1072, August.
    6. Miceli,Thomas J., 2011. "The Economic Theory of Eminent Domain," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107005259, January.
    7. Fleck, Robert K. & Hanssen, F. Andrew, 2010. "Repeated adjustment of delegated powers and the history of eminent domain," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 99-112, June.
    8. 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. Ronit Levine‐Schnur, 2023. "Is the government exhausting its powers? An empirical examination of eminent domain exercises in New York City pre‐ and post‐Kelo," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 449-468, April.
    2. Kim, Iljoong & Park, Sungkyu, 2018. "Private takings: Empirical evidence of post-taking performance," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 25-32.
    3. Thomas J. Miceli & Kathleen Segerson, 2021. "Assessing Kelo’s Legacy: Do Increased Taxes and New Jobs Justify Use of Eminent Domain?," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 63(2), pages 161-176, August.
    4. Kanazawa, Mark, 2023. "Politics and eminent domain: Evidence from the 1879 California constitution," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Turnbull Geoffrey & Salvino Robert & Tasto Michael, 2018. "Using Eminent Domain for Economic Development: Does it Increase Private Sector Employment?," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(3), pages 1-24, November.
    7. Thomas J. Miceli, 2016. "The Cost of Kelo," Public Finance Review, , vol. 44(4), pages 500-522, July.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Kim, Iljoong & Park, Sungkyu, 2018. "Private takings: Empirical evidence of post-taking performance," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 25-32.
    4. Laura Rae Dove, 2016. "Introducing the Moral Foundations of Capitalism in Undergraduate Business Law and Ethics Courses Using Kelo v. City of New London," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 31(Summer 20), pages 87-95.
    5. Daniel Göller & Michael Hewer, 2014. "Economic Analysis of Taking Rules: The Bilateral Investment Case," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 170(3), pages 520-536, September.
    6. Thomas J. Miceli & Kathleen Segerson, 2014. "Takings," Working papers 2014-17, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    7. López Edward J. & Clark J.R., 2013. "The Problem with the Holdout Problem," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 9(2), pages 151-167, September.
    8. Miceli, Thomas J., 2008. "Public goods, taxes, and takings," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 287-293, December.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Kanazawa, Mark, 2023. "Politics and eminent domain: Evidence from the 1879 California constitution," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Hoehn, John P. & Adanu, Kwami, 2014. "What motivates voters’ support for eminent domain reform: Ownership, vulnerability, or ideology?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 90-99.
    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. 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).
    16. Ronit Levine‐Schnur, 2023. "Is the government exhausting its powers? An empirical examination of eminent domain exercises in New York City pre‐ and post‐Kelo," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 449-468, April.
    17. Indra de Soysa & Synøve Almås, 2019. "Does Ethnolinguistic Diversity Preclude Good Governance? A Comparative Study with Alternative Data, 1990‐2015," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(4), pages 604-636, November.
    18. Bjørnskov, Christian, 2015. "Does economic freedom really kill? On the association between ‘Neoliberal’ policies and homicide rates," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 207-219.
    19. Ahlin, Christian & Kim, In Kyung & Kim, Kyoo il, 2021. "Who commits fraud? evidence from korean gas stations," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    20. Olken, Benjamin A., 2009. "Corruption perceptions vs. corruption reality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(7-8), pages 950-964, August.

    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:27:y:2013:i:4:p:352-362. 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.