IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/irlaec/v30y2010i2p99-112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Repeated adjustment of delegated powers and the history of eminent domain

Author

Listed:
  • Fleck, Robert K.
  • Hanssen, F. Andrew

Abstract

In representative democracies, citizens delegate powers. Not surprisingly, citizens react angrily when the delegated powers are misused (i.e., used so as to decrease social welfare). Perhaps more puzzlingly, citizens sometimes repeatedly delegate the same power (e.g., surveillance of citizens, conscription), and then repeatedly react with anger to its misuse. To study this phenomenon, we model a stylized public that repeatedly adjusts the set of powers it delegates to politicians. The public obtains new information each period, forecasts rationally (but not perfectly) the benefits and costs of delegation, and infers the likelihood with which a court will correct politicians' misuses of delegated powers. We use the model to explore the history of eminent domain in the United States--a history characterized by periodic public backlash. The model and historical discussion illuminate the nature of public responses to judicial rulings--explaining why the public may react by adjusting the scope of delegated powers, even if a ruling merely upholds a well-established precedent.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:irlaec:v:30:y:2010:i:2:p:99-112
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144-8188(09)00072-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John G. Matsusaka, 1992. "Economics of Direct Legislation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 107(2), pages 541-571.
    2. Barro, Robert J, 1986. "Recent Developments in the Theory of Rules versus Discretion," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 96(380a), pages 23-37, Supplemen.
    3. Timothy Besley & Stephen Coate, 2003. "Elected Versus Appointed Regulators: Theory and Evidence," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(5), pages 1176-1206, September.
    4. Hanssen F. Andrew, 1999. "Appointed Courts, Elected Courts, and Public Utility Regulation: Judicial Independence and the Energy Crisis," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 1(2), pages 179-252, August.
    5. 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.
    6. Eric Maskin & Jean Tirole, 2004. "The Politician and the Judge: Accountability in Government," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 1034-1054, September.
    7. Auerbach, Alan J., 2006. "Budget windows, sunsets, and fiscal control," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(1-2), pages 87-100, January.
    8. Hahn, Robert W, 2000. "State and Federal Regulatory Reform: A Comparative Analysis," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(2), pages 873-912, June.
    9. F. Andrew Hanssen, 2004. "Learning about Judicial Independence: Institutional Change in the State Courts," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 431-473, June.
    10. Ramseyer, J Mark, 1994. "The Puzzling (In)dependence of Courts: A Comparative Approach," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(2), pages 721-747, June.
    11. McCubbins, Mathew D & Noll, Roger G & Weingast, Barry R, 1987. "Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 243-277, Fall.
    12. Munch, Patricia, 1976. "An Economic Analysis of Eminent Domain," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 84(3), pages 473-497, June.
    13. F. Andrew Hanssen, 2004. "Is There a Politically Optimal Level of Judicial Independence?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(3), pages 712-729, June.
    14. Scheiber, Harry N., 1973. "Property Law, Expropriation, and Resource Allocation by Government: the United States, 1789–1910," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(01), pages 232-251, March.
    15. Hart, John F, 1998. "Property Rights, Costs, and Welfare: Delaware Water Mill Legislation, 1719-1859," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 27(2), pages 455-471, June.
    16. John G. Matsusaka, 2005. "Direct Democracy Works," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 185-206, Spring.
    17. repec:reg:rpubli:218 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Macey, Jonathan R, 1992. "Organizational Design and Political Control of Administrative Agencies," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 93-110, March.
    19. Fleck, Robert K, 2000. "When Should Market-Supporting Institutions Be Established?," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 129-154, April.
    20. Wright, Gavin, 1999. "The Civil Rights Revolution as Economic History," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 59(02), pages 267-289, June.
    21. Hanssen, F Andrew, 2000. "Independent Courts and Administrative Agencies: An Empirical Analysis of the States," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 534-571, October.
    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. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    D78; H1; K11; N4; P16 Eminent domain Delegated powers;

    JEL classification:

    • D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation
    • H1 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government
    • K11 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Property Law
    • N4 - Economic History - - Government, War, Law, International Relations, and Regulation
    • P16 - Economic Systems - - Capitalist Systems - - - Political Economy of Capitalism

    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:eee:irlaec:v:30:y:2010:i:2:p:99-112. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/irle .

    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.