IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v48y2011i1p161-176.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Institutions in Theories of Land Markets: Illustrated by the Dutch Market for Agricultural Land

Author

Listed:
  • Barrie Needham

    (School of Management, Radboud University, Nijmegen, PO Box 9108, Nijmegen 6500 HK, The Netherlands, b.needham@fm.ru.nl)

  • Arno Segeren

    (Netherlands Institute for Spatial Research and is now at the Municipality of the Hague, arno.segeren@dso.denhaag.nl)

  • Edwin Buitelaar

    (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Oranjebuitensingel 6, The Hague, 2511VE, The Netherlands, edwin.buitelaar@pbl.nl)

Abstract

Theories of land markets should be intellectually sound and should be able to explain and predict market outcomes, such as price and volume of transactions, changes in these and locations of different land uses. Theories based on neo-classical economics, which largely ignore the role of institutions, are not intellectually sound because it is known that markets cannot work without institutions. Nor do these theories predict outcomes satisfactorily. Moreover, they assume market mechanisms and do not investigate them critically. This paper explores how institutions may be taken into account in theories of land markets and whether that leads to better theories both of market outcomes and of market processes. New institutional economics provides the tools to investigate how the interactions between market actors are influenced by institutions. And the ‘old’ institutional economics emphasises how institutions influence the motivations and preferences of those actors. The conclusion is that there cannot be a general theory of land markets, only theories with a limited applicability and scope. Such theories can be used to explain the effects of small changes and to predict the effects of marginal changes in institutions. In that latter use, these theories can be used for designing land policy. How institutions can be incorporated into theory is illustrated by analysing the Dutch market for agricultural land. This shows how institutions affect the outcomes in that market and the consequences for the transformation of land from agriculture to urban use.

Suggested Citation

  • Barrie Needham & Arno Segeren & Edwin Buitelaar, 2011. "Institutions in Theories of Land Markets: Illustrated by the Dutch Market for Agricultural Land," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 48(1), pages 161-176, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:48:y:2011:i:1:p:161-176
    DOI: 10.1177/0042098009360682
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0042098009360682
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0042098009360682?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. Chris Webster & Lawrence W.-C. Lai, 2003. "Property Rights, Planning and Markets," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2625.
    2. Unknown, 2008. "Land- en tuinbouwcijfers 2008," Report Series 43078, Wageningen University and Research Center, Agricultural Economics Research Institute.
    3. Alchian, Armen A. & Demsetz, Harold, 1973. "The Property Right Paradigm," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 16-27, March.
    4. Oliver E. Williamson & Scott E Masten (ed.), . "The Economics of Transaction Costs," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1652.
    5. Geoffrey Hodgson, 2002. "The Legal Nature of the Firm and the Myth of the Firm-Market Hybrid," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 37-60.
    6. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    7. repec:rri:bkchap:16 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. G. Hodgson, 2007. "What Are Institutions?," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 8.
    9. Williamson, Oliver E, 1999. "Public and Private Bureaucracies: A Transaction Cost Economics Perspective," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 306-342, April.
    10. Robert McMaster & Craig Watkins, 2006. "Economics and underdetermination: a case study of urban land and housing economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 30(6), pages 901-922, November.
    11. repec:brs:ecchap:16 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Grant I. Thrall, 1987. "Land Use and Urban Form," Wholbk, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University, number 16, July-Sept.
    13. Barzel,Yoram, 1997. "Economic Analysis of Property Rights," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521597135, February.
    14. Michael Ball, 1998. "Institutions in British Property Research: A Review," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 35(9), pages 1501-1517, August.
    15. Geoffrey M. Hodgson, 2000. "What Is the Essence of Institutional Economics?," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(2), pages 317-329, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jieming Zhu, 2005. "A Transitional Institution for the Emerging Land Market in Urban China," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(8), pages 1369-1390, July.
    2. 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.
    3. Jason Coupet & Abagail McWilliams, 2017. "Integrating Organizational Economics and Resource Dependence Theory to Explain the Persistence of Quasi Markets," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-13, August.
    4. Coggan, Anthea & Whitten, Stuart M. & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Influences of transaction costs in environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1777-1784, July.
    5. Gabriel Hoh Teck Ling & Pau Chung Leng & Chin Siong Ho, 2019. "Effects of Diverse Property Rights on Rural Neighbourhood Public Open Space (POS) Governance: Evidence from Sabah, Malaysia," Economies, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-33, June.
    6. Coggan, Anthea & Buitelaar, Edwin & Whitten, Stuart & Bennett, Jeff, 2013. "Factors that influence transaction costs in development offsets: Who bears what and why?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 222-231.
    7. Edwin Buitelaar, 2004. "A Transaction-cost Analysis of the Land Development Process," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(13), pages 2539-2553, December.
    8. Kim, Jongwook & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2006. "How Property Rights Economics Furthers the Resource-Based View: Resources, Transaction Costs and Entrepreneurial Discovery," Working Papers 06-0100, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    9. Munshifwa, Ephraim Kabunda, 2023. "Institutional analysis and informal urban settlements: A proposition for a new institutionalist grounded property rights perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    10. Cheung, K.S. & Wong, S.K. & Wu, H. & Yiu, C.Y., 2021. "The land governance cost on co-ownership: A study of the cross-lease in New Zealand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    11. Pietri, Antoine, 2015. "« Propriété » ou « possession » : une question de sémantique…ou de paradigme ? [“Property” or “possession”: just a matter of semantics…or paradigm?]," MPRA Paper 67096, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Erwin van der Krabben, 2009. "A Property Rights Approach to Externality Problems: Planning Based on Compensation Rules," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 46(13), pages 2869-2890, December.
    13. Helder Marcos Freitas Pereira & Maria Sylvia Macchione Saes, 2022. "Government Support and Institutions’ Intermediation throughout Companies’ Adaptation to the COVID-19 Crisis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-16, May.
    14. Hagos, Hosaena Ghebru, 2012. "Tenure (in)security and agricultural investment of smallholder farmers in Mozambique:," MSSP working papers 5, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    15. Dick Ruiter, 2005. "Is Transaction Cost Economics Applicable to Public Governance?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 287-303, November.
    16. Zhllima, Edvin & Viaggi, Davide & Müller, Daniel, 2010. "Property rights to land and its perception in rural part of central Albania," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 9(3), pages 56-64.
    17. Céline Chatelin, 2003. "Efficience vs inefficience des organisations publiques : la contribution des théories contractuelles," Working Papers 2003-5, Laboratoire Orléanais de Gestion - université d'Orléans.
    18. 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.
    19. Nastasi, Federico & Spagano, Salvatore, 2023. "Institutionalist Clues in Celso Furtado’s Economic Thought," MPRA Paper 120242, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Maximiliano Marzetti & Rok Spruk, 2023. "Long-Term Economic Effects of Populist Legal Reforms: Evidence from Argentina," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 65(1), pages 60-95, March.

    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:sae:urbstu:v:48:y:2011:i:1:p:161-176. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    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.