The State’s Enforcement Monopoly and the Private Protection of Property
The modern state has monopolized the legitimate use of force. This concept is twofold. First, the state is empowered with enforcement rights; second, the rights of the individuals are (partly) restricted. In a simple model of property rights with appropriation and defense activity, we show that a restriction of private enforcement is beneficial for the property owner, even if there are no economies of scale from public protection. We emphasize the role of the state as a commitment device for a certain level of enforcement. However, commitment will only work if the state can regulate private protection. A ban of private enforcement measures can even be beneficial in situations where there would be no private enforcement at first place because the “shadow” of defense has a negative impact on the investments in property rights infringements. From a legal perspective, our approach emphasizes a regulation of victim behavior as opposed to the standard approach which focuses on the regulation of criminal behavior.
|Date of creation:||Sep 2011|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Kurt-Schumacher-Str. 10 - D- 53113 Bonn|
Phone: +49-(0)228 / 91416-0
Fax: +49-(0)228 / 91416-55
Web page: http://www.coll.mpg.de/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Donohue, John J, III & Levitt, Steven D, 1998. "Guns, Violence, and the Efficiency of Illegal Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(2), pages 463-467, May.
- Yildirim, Huseyin, 2005. "Contests with multiple rounds," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 213-227, April.
- Morgan, John & Vardy, Felix, 2007.
"The value of commitment in contests and tournaments when observation is costly,"
Games and Economic Behavior,
Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 326-338, August.
- Felix Várdy & John Morgan, 2005. "The Value of Commitment in Contests and Tournaments when Observation is Costly," Public Economics 0504005, EconWPA.
- Morgan, John & VÃ¡rdy, Felix, 2005. "The Value of Commitment in Contests and Tournaments when Observation is Costly," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt0s6752rf, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Kyle Bagwell, 1992.
"Commitment and Observability in Games,"
1014, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Steven Shavell & A. Mitchell Polinsky, 2000.
"The Economic Theory of Public Enforcement of Law,"
Journal of Economic Literature,
American Economic Association, vol. 38(1), pages 45-76, March.
- Corchón, Luis C., 2007.
"The theory of contests : a survey,"
UC3M Working papers. Economics
we075126, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
- Hodgson, Geoffrey M., 2006. "Microeconomics: Behavior, Institutions, and Evolution, Samuel Bowles, Princeton University Press and Russell Sage Foundation, 2004, 584 pages," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(01), pages 166-171, March.
- Shavell, Steven, 1991. "Individual precautions to prevent theft: Private versus socially optimal behavior," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 123-132, September.
- Mueller,Dennis C., 2003. "Public Choice III," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521894753, October.
- Skaperdas, Stergios, 1996.
"Contest Success Functions,"
Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(2), pages 283-290, February.
- Michele Boldrin & David Levine, 2002.
"The Case Against Intellectual Property,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 209-212, May.
- Herschel I. Grossman, 1997.
""Make Us a King": Anarchy, Predation, and the State,"
NBER Working Papers
6289, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Grossman, Herschel I., 2002. ""Make us a king": anarchy, predation, and the state," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 31-46, March.
- Clotfelter, Charles T, 1977. "Public Services, Private Substitutes, and the Demand for Protection against Crime," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(5), pages 867-877, December.
- Dam, Kenneth W, 1999. "Self-Help in the Digital Jungle," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(2), pages 393-412, June.
- Bush, Winston C. & Mayer, Lawrence S., 1974. "Some implications of anarchy for the distribution of property," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 401-412, August.
- Martin Kolmar, 2008. "Perfectly Secure Property Rights and Production Inefficiencies in Tullock Contests," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 441-456, October.
- Clotfelter, Charles T., 1978. "Private security and the public safety," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 388-402, July.
- Konrad, Kai A., 2009. "Strategy and Dynamics in Contests," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199549603, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mpg:wpaper:2011_24. 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: (Marc Martin)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.