IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_6557.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Land Trade and Development: A Market Design Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Gharad Bryan
  • Jonathan de Quidt
  • Tom Wilkening
  • Nitin Yadav

Abstract

Small farms and fragmented plots are hallmarks of agriculture in less-developed countries, and there is evidence of high returns to land consolidation and reallocation. Complementarities, holdout and asymmetric information mean that private trade will be slow to reallocate land, and imply that market design has the potential to contribute to the development process. Complexity concerns are, however, paramount. We present results from a framed field experiment with Kenyan farmers, comparing the performance of several continuous-time land exchanges. Farmers are able to achieve high degrees of efficiency, and to comprehend and gain from a relatively complicated package exchange.

Suggested Citation

  • Gharad Bryan & Jonathan de Quidt & Tom Wilkening & Nitin Yadav, 2017. "Land Trade and Development: A Market Design Approach," CESifo Working Paper Series 6557, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_6557
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp6557.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tasso Adamopoulos & Diego Restuccia, 2014. "The Size Distribution of Farms and International Productivity Differences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(6), pages 1667-1697, June.
    2. Cramton, Peter & Gibbons, Robert & Klemperer, Paul, 1987. "Dissolving a Partnership Efficiently," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(3), pages 615-632, May.
    3. Nejat Anbarci & Nick Feltovich, 2013. "How sensitive are bargaining outcomes to changes in disagreement payoffs?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(4), pages 560-596, December.
    4. Chernomaz, Kirill & Levin, Dan, 2012. "Efficiency and synergy in a multi-unit auction with and without package bidding: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 611-635.
    5. Geoffroy de Clippel & Kareen Rozen, 2022. "Fairness through the Lens of Cooperative Game Theory: An Experimental Approach," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 810-836, August.
    6. Milgrom,Paul, 2004. "Putting Auction Theory to Work," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521536721.
    7. Anthony M. Kwasnica & John O. Ledyard & Dave Porter & Christine DeMartini, 2005. "A New and Improved Design for Multiobject Iterative Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(3), pages 419-434, March.
    8. Geoffroy de Clippel & Kareen Rozen, 2020. "Fairness through the Lens of Cooperative Game Theory: An Experimental Approach," Working Papers 2020-09, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    9. Besley, Timothy & Ghatak, Maitreesh, 2010. "Property Rights and Economic Development," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Dani Rodrik & Mark Rosenzweig (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 4525-4595, Elsevier.
    10. Daniel Ayalew Ali & Klaus Deininger & Loraine Ronchi, 2019. "Costs and Benefits of Land Fragmentation: Evidence from Rwanda," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 33(3), pages 750-771.
    11. Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A., 2010. "Hierarchical package bidding: A paper & pencil combinatorial auction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 146-169, September.
    12. Myerson, Roger B. & Satterthwaite, Mark A., 1983. "Efficient mechanisms for bilateral trading," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 265-281, April.
    13. Klaus Deininger & Daniel Monchuk & Hari K Nagarajan & Sudhir K Singh, 2017. "Does Land Fragmentation Increase the Cost of Cultivation? Evidence from India," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(1), pages 82-98, January.
    14. Fiala, Nathan, 2015. "Skills in the marketplace: Market efficiency, social orientation, and ability in a field-based experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 174-188.
    15. Deininger, Klaus & Feder, Gershon, 2001. "Land institutions and land markets," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 6, pages 288-331, Elsevier.
    16. S.J. Rassenti & V.L. Smith & R.L. Bulfin, 1982. "A Combinatorial Auction Mechanism for Airport Time Slot Allocation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 13(2), pages 402-417, Autumn.
    17. Simon Loertscher & Leslie M. Marx & Tom Wilkening, 2015. "A Long Way Coming: Designing Centralized Markets with Privately Informed Buyers and Sellers," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 53(4), pages 857-897, December.
    18. Loertscher, Simon & Wasser, Cédric, 2019. "Optimal structure and dissolution of partnerships," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(3), July.
    19. Paul Milgrom, 2007. "Package Auctions and Exchanges," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(4), pages 935-965, July.
    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. Margarita Gáfaro & César Mantilla, 2019. "Preferences, Uncertainty, and Biases in Land Division: A Bargaining Experiment in the Field," Borradores de Economia 1092, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
    2. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    3. Gáfaro, Margarita & Mantilla, César, 2020. "Land division: A lab-in-the-field bargaining experiment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    4. Simon Finster, 2023. "Selling Multiple Complements with Packaging Costs," Papers 2306.14247, arXiv.org.

    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. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    2. Loertscher, Simon & Marx, Leslie M., 2020. "A dominant-strategy asset market mechanism," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-15.
    3. Chernomaz, Kirill & Levin, Dan, 2012. "Efficiency and synergy in a multi-unit auction with and without package bidding: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 611-635.
    4. Anthony M. Kwasnica & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2013. "Multiunit Auctions," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 461-490, July.
    5. Do, Manh Hung & Nguyen, Trung Thanh & Grote, Ulrike, 2023. "Land consolidation, rice production, and agricultural transformation: Evidence from household panel data for Vietnam," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 157-173.
    6. Loertscher, Simon & Wasser, Cédric, 2019. "Optimal structure and dissolution of partnerships," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(3), July.
    7. Diego Restuccia & Richard Rogerson, 2017. "The Causes and Costs of Misallocation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(3), pages 151-174, Summer.
    8. Börgers, Tilman & Postl, Peter, 2009. "Efficient compromising," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(5), pages 2057-2076, September.
    9. Ning Sun & Zaifu Yang, 2014. "An Efficient and Incentive Compatible Dynamic Auction for Multiple Complements," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 122(2), pages 422-466.
    10. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2020. "Improvements to auction theory and inventions of new auction formats," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2020-2, Nobel Prize Committee.
    11. Van Essen, Matt & Wooders, John, 2016. "Dissolving a partnership dynamically," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 212-241.
    12. Pickl, Matthias & Wirl, Franz, 2011. "Auction design for gas pipeline transportation capacity--The case of Nabucco and its open season," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 2143-2151, April.
    13. Munro, David R. & Rassenti, Stephen J., 2019. "Combinatorial clock auctions: Price direction and performance," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 195-217.
    14. Pallab Sanyal, 2016. "Characteristics and Economic Consequences of Jump Bids in Combinatorial Auctions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 347-364, June.
    15. Kaplan, Todd R. & Zamir, Shmuel, 2015. "Advances in Auctions," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    16. Gediminas Adomavicius & Alok Gupta & Mochen Yang, 2022. "Bidder Support in Multi-item Multi-unit Continuous Combinatorial Auctions: A Unifying Theoretical Framework," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 1174-1195, December.
    17. Yan Chen & Peter Cramton & John A. List & Axel Ockenfels, 2021. "Market Design, Human Behavior, and Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5317-5348, September.
    18. Josheski Dushko & Karamazova Elena, 2021. "Auction theory and a note on game mechanisms," Croatian Review of Economic, Business and Social Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 7(1), pages 43-59, May.
    19. Sun, Ning & Yang, Zaifu, 2016. "An Efficient and Strategy-Proof Double-Track Auction for Substitutes and Complements," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 523, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    20. Lindsay, Luke, 2018. "Shapley value based pricing for auctions and exchanges," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 170-181.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    market design; field experiments; economic development; land trade;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D47 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Market Design
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ces:ceswps:_6557. 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    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.