IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/irlaec/v30y2010i2p99-112.html

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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel M. Klerman, 2005. "The Value of Judicial Independence: Evidence from Eighteenth Century England," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 7(1), pages 1-27.
    2. Hermalin, Benjamin E, 1995. "An Economic Analysis of Takings," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 64-86, April.
    3. 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(1), pages 232-251, March.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    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. Macey, Jonathan R, 1992. "Organizational Design and Political Control of Administrative Agencies," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 93-110, March.
    9. Fleck, Robert K, 2000. "When Should Market-Supporting Institutions Be Established?," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 129-154, April.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Hanssen, F. Andrew, 1999. "Appointed Courts, Elected Courts, and Public Utility Regulation: Judicial Independence and the Energy Crisis," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 179-201, August.
    14. McCubbins, Mathew D & Noll, Roger G & Weingast, Barry R, 1987. "Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 243-277, Fall.
    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. Wright, Gavin, 1999. "The Civil Rights Revolution as Economic History," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 59(2), pages 267-289, June.
    18. John G. Matsusaka, 1992. "Economics of Direct Legislation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 107(2), pages 541-571.
    19. Munch, Patricia, 1976. "An Economic Analysis of Eminent Domain," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 84(3), pages 473-497, June.
    20. 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.
    21. repec:reg:rpubli:218 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Hanssen, F Andrew, 2000. "Independent Courts and Administrative Agencies: An Empirical Analysis of the States," The 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. Fleck, Robert K. & Hanssen, F. Andrew, 2024. "Courts, legislatures, and evolving property rules: Lessons from eminent domain," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    2. 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.
    3. López Edward J. & Clark J.R., 2013. "The Problem with the Holdout Problem," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 9(2), pages 151-167, September.
    4. Steven P. Lanza & Thomas J. Miceli & C. F. Sirmans & Moussa Diop, 2013. "The Use of Eminent Domain for Economic Development in the Era of Kelo," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 27(4), pages 352-362, November.

    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. Fleck, Robert K. & Hanssen, F. Andrew, 2024. "Courts, legislatures, and evolving property rules: Lessons from eminent domain," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    2. Dove, John A., 2018. "It's easier to contract than to pay: Judicial independence and US municipal default in the 19th century," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 1062-1081.
    3. Fiorino, Nadia & Gavoille, Nicolas & Padovano, Fabio, 2015. "Rewarding judicial independence: Evidence from the Italian Constitutional Court," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 56-66.
    4. Constantina P. Tridimas & George Tridimas, 2020. "Is the UK Supreme Court rogue to un-prorogue Parliament?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 205-225, April.
    5. Pushkar Maitra & Russell Smyth, 2004. "Judicial Independence, Judicial Promotion and the Enforcement of Legislative Wealth Transfers—An Empirical Study of the New Zealand High Court," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 209-235, March.
    6. Iaryczower, Matias & Lewis, Garrett & Shum, Matthew, 2013. "To elect or to appoint? Bias, information, and responsiveness of bureaucrats and politicians," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 230-244.
    7. 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.
    8. Guerriero, Carmine, 2011. "Accountability in government and regulatory policies: Theory and evidence," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 453-469.
    9. Christian Schultz, 2003. "Information, Polarization and Delegation in Democracy," EPRU Working Paper Series 03-16, Economic Policy Research Unit (EPRU), University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    10. Daniel Berkowitz & Karen Clay, 2007. "Legal Origins and the Evolution of Institutions: Evidence from American State Courts," Working Paper 320, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Jun 2007.
    11. Timothy Besley, 2013. "Implementation of Anti-Discrimination Policy: Does Judicial Selection Matter?," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 15(1), pages 212-251.
    12. Eric Langlais & Marie Obidzinski, 2013. "Elected vs appointed public law enforcers," Working Papers hal-04141175, HAL.
    13. Lars P. Feld & Stefan Voigt, 2004. "Making Judges Independent – Some Proposals Regarding the Judiciary+," Marburg Working Papers on Economics 200429, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    14. Estache, Antonio & Foucart, Renaud, 2013. "Benchmarking Politicians," CEPR Discussion Papers 9467, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    15. Christian Almer & Timo Goeschl, 2011. "The political economy of the environmental criminal justice system: a production function approach," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(3), pages 611-630, September.
    16. Tim Besley & Abigail Payne, 2003. "Judicial accountability and economic policy outcomes: evidence from employment discrimination charges," IFS Working Papers W03/11, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    17. Brenner Dror & Cohen Alon, 2016. "Ideology and Strategy among Politicians: The Case of Judicial Independence," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(2), pages 333-375, July.
    18. 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.
    19. Simon Hug, 2009. "Some thoughts about referendums, representative democracy, and separation of powers," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 251-266, September.
    20. Gradstein, Mark & Kaganovich, Michael, 2019. "Legislative restraints in corporate bailout design," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 337-350.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State

    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.

    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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/irle .

    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.