IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v87y2006i3p459-476.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Externalities, Prospect Theory, and Social Construction: When Will Government Act, What Will Government Do?

Author

Listed:
  • Annette Steinacker

Abstract

Objectives. Political theories of agenda setting and policy choice are still limited in predicting when an issue will become salient and, once it has, what policy option will be used to address it. This article illustrates that for a large class of externality problems, perspectives from three other social science disciplines can refine those predictions. Methods. A synthesis of implications from economics on assignment of property rights, loss aversion from prospect theory, and image of the policy target from social construction is used to determine the conditions under which issues gain attention and the likely policy solutions. Results. Assignment of property rights establishes a baseline used to assess any further government actions, with losses from that base more likely to generate political attention. The assignment of rights also determines if a problem is defined as a negative or positive externality, which restricts the type of policies used to address the problem. This initial allocation of rights is in turn affected both by the political power and social construction of the groups involved. Conclusions. The result is a bias in policy attention and outcomes strongly influenced by the norms used in assignment of property rights, which typically favor those generating the negative externality.

Suggested Citation

  • Annette Steinacker, 2006. "Externalities, Prospect Theory, and Social Construction: When Will Government Act, What Will Government Do?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 87(3), pages 459-476, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:87:y:2006:i:3:p:459-476
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00391.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00391.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00391.x?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. Barzel,Yoram, 1997. "Economic Analysis of Property Rights," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521597135, February.
    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. Jessica Zeiss & Les Carlson & A. Dwayne Ball, 2021. "Uncalculated first‐party externalities given a beverage tax," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2706-2717, November.
    2. Dinghuan Yuan & Yung Yau & Huiying (Cynthia) Hou & Yongshen Liu, 2021. "Factors Influencing the Project Duration of Urban Village Redevelopment in Contemporary China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-24, July.
    3. Michelle Worosz & Andrew Knight & Craig Harris, 2008. "Resilience in the US red meat industry: the roles of food safety policy," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 25(2), pages 187-191, June.

    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. Kirsten Foss & Nicolai Foss, 2001. "Theoretical isolation in contract theory: suppressing margins and entrepreneurship," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(3), pages 313-339.
    2. Whitten, Stuart M. & Salzman, James & Shelton, Dave & Procter, Wendy, 2003. "Markets for ecosystem services: Applying the concepts," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 58269, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Foss Kirsten & Foss Nicolai & Klein Peter G. & Klein Sandra K., 2002. "Heterogeneous Capital, Entrepreneurship, and Economic Organization," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, March.
    4. Kuerbis, Brenden & Mueller, Milton, 2023. "Exploring the role of data enclosure in the digital political economy," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8).
    5. Rossi, Enrico, 2020. "Reconsidering the dual nature of property rights: personal property and capital in the law and economics of property rights," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 105840, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Thomas Vendryes, 2014. "Peasants Against Private Property Rights: A Review Of The Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 971-995, December.
    7. Friel Martha & Santagata Walter, 2007. "Make Material Cultural Heritage Work," EBLA Working Papers 200710, University of Turin.
    8. Annette M. Kim, 2011. "Introduction: Real Rights to the City—Cases of Property Rights Changes towards Equity in Eastern Asia," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 48(3), pages 459-469, February.
    9. Byron B. Carson, 2022. "Individuals and Externalities in Economic Epidemiology: A Tension and Synthesis," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 37(Fall 2022), pages 1-24.
    10. Hendrik P. van Dalen & Aico P. van Vuuren, 2003. "Greasing the Wheels of Trade," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 03-066/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    11. Jérémie GIGNOUX & Karen MACOURS & Liam WREN-LEWIS, 2015. "Impact of land administration programs on agricultural productivity and rural development: existing evidence, challenges and new approaches," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 96(3), pages 467-498.
    12. Samuel Garrido, 2010. "Mejorar y quedarse. La cesión de tierra a rentas por debajo del equilibrio en la Valencia del siglo XIX," Documentos de Trabajo de la Sociedad de Estudios de Historia Agraria 1009, Sociedad de Estudios de Historia Agraria.
    13. Armelle Mazé & Claude Ménard, 2010. "Private ordering, collective action, and the self-enforcing range of contracts," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 131-153, February.
    14. Enrico Colombatto, 2002. "Towards a quasi-Lamarckian theory of institutional change," ICER Working Papers 26-2002, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    15. Ceyhun Haydaroglu, 2015. "The Relationship between Property Rights and Economic Growth: an Analysis of OECD and EU Countries," DANUBE: Law and Economics Review, European Association Comenius - EACO, issue 4, pages 217-239, December.
    16. Ghebru, Hosaena, 2015. "Is There a Merit to the Continuum Tenure Approach? A Case of Demand for Land Rights Formulation in Rural Mozambique," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211683, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Matyukha, Andriy, 2017. "Business groups in agriculture impact of ownership structures on performance: The case of Russia's agroholdings," Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Transition Economies 254051, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    18. Nicolai J. Foss, 2002. "The Strategy and Transaction Cost Nexus Past Debates, Central Questions, and Future Research Possibilities," DRUID Working Papers 02-04, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    19. Erwin Van Der Krabben & Edwin Buitelaar, 2010. "Industrial Land and Property Markets: Market Processes, Market Institutions and Market Outcomes: The Dutch Case," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(12), pages 2127-2146, September.
    20. Liesbet Vranken & Karen Macours & Nivelin Noev & Johan Swinnen, 2007. "Property Rights Imperfections, Asset Allocation, and Welfare: Co-Ownership in Bulgaria," LICOS Discussion Papers 18007, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.

    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:socsci:v:87:y:2006:i:3:p:459-476. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    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.