IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Property versus political holdouts: the case of the TGV rail line Lyon–Budapest in Italy


  • Livia Navone



The law and economics literature commonly justifies the state’s taking power on the grounds that it is necessary to overcome holdouts and, thus, allow efficient development projects to move forward (A development project is efficient when the benefit it generates exceeds its cost.). By permitting the government to take private property rights non-consensually, the taking power limits the ability of private property owners to engage in strategic bargaining with the government and puts a cap on their ability to extract payments from the government in exchange for agreeing to transfer their rights. In this paper, I will argue that the standard story is highly incomplete and, therefore, inaccurate. It conveniently ignores the ability of politically powerful groups to block development projects by exercising their de facto veto power over proposed projects. Such groups do not necessarily have rights in any properties directly affected by the project. Once these groups, whom I call “political holdouts”, are added to the analysis, it becomes clear that the payment of just compensation—or any other aspect of eminent domain law and regulatory takings jurissprudence—will not help to remove their opposition and, a fortiori, cannot guarantee efficient development. I will explore the phenomenon of “political holdouts” and analyze its causes. As I will show, political holdouts are ubiquitous. Political holdouts may arise with respect to most of what passes for public policy projects, under either the aegis of eminent domain or the government’s police power, and also with respect to non-NIMBY projects. This observation may seem counterintuitive at first. However, one should consider that efficient development projects create a surplus over which powerful interest groups compete. As should be clear, what is of interest to localities and political groups is not the overall utility of a particular development project, but rather their payoff from it. Municipalities may oppose projects that benefit them simply to increase their share of the overall surplus generated by the project. Hence, the problem I point out is significant and acute. In the remainder of this paper, I will discuss in depth how the problem of political holdouts affected the construction of a fast train line (the Lyon–Torino–Milano–Trieste–Khoper–Ljubljana–Budapest TGV line) in northern Italy. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Livia Navone, 2013. "Property versus political holdouts: the case of the TGV rail line Lyon–Budapest in Italy," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 409-426, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:ejlwec:v:35:y:2013:i:3:p:409-426
    DOI: 10.1007/s10657-011-9264-5

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. 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.
    2. Michael O'Hare & Debra Sanderson, 1993. "Facility siting and compensation: Lessons from the Massachusetts experience," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(2), pages 364-376.
    3. Mitchell, Robert Cameron & Carson, Richard T, 1986. "Property Rights, Protest, and the Siting of Hazardous Waste Facilities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 285-290, May.
    4. Fischel, William A. & Shapiro, Perry, 1989. "A constitutional choice model of compensation for takings," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 115-128, December.
    5. Farber, Daniel A., 1992. "Economic analysis and just compensation," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 125-138, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Levmore, Saul, 2002. "Two Stories about the Evolution of Property Rights," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(2), pages 421-451, June.
    8. Banner, Stuart, 2002. "Transitions between Property Regimes," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(2), pages 359-371, June.
    9. Caplan, Bryan, 2001. "Rational Irrationality and the Microfoundations of Political Failure," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 107(3-4), pages 311-331, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Property rights economics; Eminent domain; Regulatory takings; Holdouts; NIMBY; Lyon–Budapest TGV line; K10; K11; R40; R14; R52; Q50; H41;

    JEL classification:

    • K10 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - General (Constitutional Law)
    • K11 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Property Law
    • R40 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - General
    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
    • R52 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Land Use and Other Regulations
    • Q50 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - General
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods


    Access and download statistics


    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:kap:ejlwec:v:35:y:2013:i:3:p:409-426. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: .

    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.