IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecorec/v86y2010i274p367-383.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Police Powers, Regulatory Takings and the Efficient Compensation of Domestic and Foreign Investors

Author

Listed:
  • EMMA AISBETT
  • LARRY KARP
  • CAROL MCAUSLAND

Abstract

Modern international investment agreements have challenged the customary exclusion of public good regulations from being considered government 'takings' subject to compensation rules. Full compensation for regulatory takings can, however, lead to over-investment and excessive entry in risky industries. An alternative is to 'carve-out' apparently efficient regulation from compensation requirements. We design a carve-out/compensation rule that induces efficient regulation and firm-level investment even when the regulator suffers fiscal illusion and has private information about the social benefit from regulation. We also show that a carve-out reduces the subsidy to risky industry implicit in compensation rules, and thus mitigates the entry problem. Copyright © 2009 The Economic Society of Australia.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:ecorec:v:86:y:2010:i:274:p:367-383
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent?func=synergy&synergyAction=showTOC&journalCode=ecor&volume=86&issue=274&year=2010&part=null
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Polinsky, A Mitchell & Shavell, Steven, 1992. "Enforcement Costs and the Optimal Magnitude and Probability of Fines," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 35(1), pages 133-148, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Hermalin, Benjamin E, 1995. "An Economic Analysis of Takings," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 64-86, April.
    5. A. Mitchell Polinsky, 1980. "Strict Liability versus Negligence in a Market Setting," NBER Working Papers 0420, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Polinsky, A Mitchell, 1980. "Strict Liability vs. Negligence in a Market Setting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(2), pages 363-367, May.
    7. Miceli, Thomas J & Segerson, Kathleen, 1994. "Regulatory Takings: When Should Compensation Be Paid?," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(2), pages 749-776, June.
    8. Timothy J. Brennan & James Boyd, 2006. "Political Economy And The Efficiency Of Compensation For Takings," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 24(1), pages 188-202, January.
    9. Spulber, Daniel F., 1985. "Effluent regulation and long-run optimality," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 103-116, June.
    10. Lawrence Blume & Daniel L. Rubinfeld & Perry Shapiro, 1984. "The Taking of Land: When Should Compensation Be Paid?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 99(1), pages 71-92.
    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. Horn, Henrik & Tangerås, Thomas, 2016. "Economics and Politics of International Investment Agreements," Working Paper Series 1140, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    2. Kohler, Wilhelm Kaspar & Stähler, Frank, 2016. "The Economics of Investor Protection: ISDS versus National Treatment," Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145652, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    3. Schjelderup, Guttorm & Stähler, Frank, 2017. "Investor State Dispute Settlement and Multinational Firm Behavior," Discussion Papers 2017/4, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    4. repec:eee:eecrev:v:98:y:2017:i:c:p:341-353 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:spr:weltar:v:153:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s10290-017-0287-z is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Aisbett, Emma & Busse, Matthias & Nunnenkamp, Peter, 2016. "Bilateral investment treaties do work: Until they don't," Kiel Working Papers 2021, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).
    7. Aisbett Emma & Karp Larry & McAusland Carol, 2010. "Compensation for Indirect Expropriation in International Investment Agreements: Implications of National Treatment and Rights to Invest," Journal of Globalization and Development, De Gruyter, vol. 1(2), pages 1-35, December.
    8. Emma Aisbett, 2010. "Powerful Multinational or Persecuted Foreigners: ‘Foreignness’ and Influence over Government," CEPR Discussion Papers 638, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    9. Konrad, Kai A., 2017. "Large investors, regulatory taking and investor-state dispute settlement," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 341-353.
    10. Rod Falvey & Neil Foster-McGregor, 2017. "Heterogeneous effects of bilateral investment treaties," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), pages 631-656.
    11. Ronit Levine-Schnur & Gideon Parchomovsky, 2016. "Is the Government Fiscally Blind? An Empirical Examination of the Effect of the Compensation Requirement on Eminent-Domain Exercises," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(2), pages 437-469.

    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:bla:ecorec:v:86:y:2010:i:274:p:367-383. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/esausea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.