AbstractThis paper considers the implications associated with a recent Supreme Court ruling that can be interpreted as supporting the use of eminent domain in transferring the property rights of one private agent—a landowner—to another private agent—a developer. Compared to voluntary exchange, when property rights are transferred via eminent domain, landowners’ investments in their properties become more inefficient and, as a result, any benefit associated with mitigating the holdout problem between landowners and the developer is reduced. Social welfare can only increase if the holdout problem is significant; otherwise, social welfare will fall when property rights are transferred via eminent domain.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland in its series Working Paper with number 0713.
Date of creation: 2007
Date of revision:
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2007-10-27 (All new papers)
- NEP-HPE-2007-10-27 (History & Philosophy of Economics)
- NEP-LAW-2007-10-27 (Law & Economics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- Thomas A. Garrett & Paul Rothstein, 2007. "The taking of prosperity? Kelo vs. New London and the economics of eminent domain," The Regional Economist, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, issue Jan, pages 4-9.
- Blume, Lawrence & Rubinfeld, Daniel L & Shapiro, Perry, 1984. "The Taking of Land: When Should Compensation Be Paid?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 99(1), pages 71-92, February.
- John Cadigan & Pamela Schmitt & Robert Shupp & Kurtis Swope1, 2009.
"An Experimental Study of the Holdout Problem in a Multilateral Bargaining Game,"
Southern Economic Journal,
Southern Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 344-457, October.
- Kurtis Swope & Pamela Schmitt & John Cadigan & Robert Shupp, 2008. "An Experimental Study of the Holdout Problem in a Multilateral Bargaining Game," Departmental Working Papers 21, United States Naval Academy Department of Economics.
- 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.
- Kurtis Swope & Pamela Schmitt & John Cadigan & Robert Shupp, 2009. "The Holdout Problem and Urban Sprawl: Experimental Evidence," Departmental Working Papers 24, United States Naval Academy Department of Economics.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Lee Faulhaber).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.