IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jinsec/v22y2026ip-_25.html

Opportunism and the limits of blockchain as urban land governance: a comparative transaction-cost analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Kavaarpuo, Godwin
  • Ameyaw, Prince Donkor
  • Owusu Ansah, Barikisa
  • Asante Boakye, Elijah

Abstract

Blockchain is frequently proposed as a solution to tenure insecurity, administrative inefficiencies, and corruption, where conventional land reforms have fallen short. However, evidence of its institutional effectiveness remains limited. Drawing on Williamsonian transaction cost economics and an analytical autoethnographic research design, we undertake a comparative analysis of blockchain’s ability to curb opportunism and safeguard the interests of land-transacting parties relative to Ghana’s customary and statutory land-governance structures. Our findings show that while blockchain performs well at some ex ante safeguards, it offers no clear advantage over existing governance structures at the ex post stage. Of the seven identified forms of post-transaction opportunism that buyers often face, blockchain was superior only in minimising hold-up risks. We conclude with implications for policymakers and technologists considering blockchain adoption.

Suggested Citation

  • Kavaarpuo, Godwin & Ameyaw, Prince Donkor & Owusu Ansah, Barikisa & Asante Boakye, Elijah, 2026. "Opportunism and the limits of blockchain as urban land governance: a comparative transaction-cost analysis," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22, pages 1-1, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jinsec:v:22:y:2026:i::p:-_25
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744137426100605/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:cup:jinsec:v:22:y:2026:i::p:-_25. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/joi .

    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.