Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T11:30:41.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative urban institutions and intertemporal externality: a revisit of the Coase conjecture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2009

FENG DENG
FENG DENG*
Affiliation:
School of Economics and Business Administration, Chongqing University, Chongqing, P. R. China
*
*Email: dengfengf@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Coase originally formulated his conjecture about intertemporal price competition in an example of land monopoly, but it has been applied almost exclusively to non-spatial markets. This paper revisits the Coase conjecture and compares four institutional arrangements based on the combination of land tenure options and local governance forms: private/rental, public/rental, private/owner, and public/owner. The two-period model developed in this paper shows that homeownership may result in more land development than leasehold. Numeric examples suggest (1) public/owner is efficient for uniform distribution of consumer; (2) rentals can be desirable for ‘poor’ communities; (3) private/owner is more efficient for ‘rich’ communities; (4) restrictive zoning reduces social surplus. These results can help explain why public institutions are dominant in the urban area and why most private communities are small, located in the suburbs, and for middle-upper class.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , August 2009 , pp. 225 - 250
Copyright
Copyright © The JOIE Foundation 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnott, R. (1989), ‘Housing Vacancies, Thin Markets, and Idiosyncratic Tastes’, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 2 (5): 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, Stephen E. and Silverman, Carol J. (1994), Common Interest Communities: Private Governments and the Public Interest, Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies Press.Google Scholar
Barzel, Yoram (1989), Economic Analysis of Property Rights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barzel, Yoram and Sass, Tim B. (1990), ‘The Allocation of Resources by Voting’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105: 745–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basu, K. and Emerson, P. M. (2003), ‘Efficiency Pricing, Tenancy Rent Control and Monopolistic Landlords’, Economica, 70: 223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beito, D. T. et al. (2002), The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Blakely, Edward J. and Snyder, Mary Gail (1999), Fortress America: Gated Communities in the United States, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Bond, Eric W. and Samuelson, Larry (1984), ‘Durable Good Monopolies with Rational Expectations and Replacement Sales’, The Rand Journal of Economics, 15 (3): 336–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brueckner, Jan (1983), ‘Property Value Maximization and Public Sector Efficiency’, Journal of Urban Economics, 14 (1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulow, Jeremy I. (1982), ‘Durable-Goods Monopolists’, Journal of Political Economy, 90 (2): 314–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulow, Jeremy (1986), ‘An Economic Theory of Planned Obsolescence’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101 (4): 729–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coase, R. H. (1972), ‘Monopoly and Durability’, Journal of Law and Economics, 15: 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deng, F. Frederic (2002), ‘Ground Lease-Based Land Use System versus Common Interest Development’, Land Economics, 78 (2): 190–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deng, F. Frederic (2003), ‘Collective Goods and the Political Hold-Up Problem’, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 159 (2): 414–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischel, William A. (1985), The Economics of Zoning Laws: A Property Rights Approach to American Land Use Controls, Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Fischel, William A. (2001), The Homevoter Hypothesis: How Home Values Influence Local Government Taxation, School Finance, and Land-Use Policies, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fishback, Price V. (1992), ‘The Economics of Company Housing: Historical Perspectives from the Coal Fields’, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 8 (2): 346–365.Google Scholar
Foldvary, Fred (1994), Public Goods and Private Communities, Brookfield, Vermont: Edward Elgar Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Fudenberg, Drew and Tirole, Jean (1998), ‘Upgrades, Tradeins, and Buybacks’, RAND Journal of Economics, 29 (2): 235–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, Henry (1879), Progress and Poverty, New York, NY: The Robert Schalkenbach Foundation.Google Scholar
Hart, Oliver (1995), Firms, Contracts, and Financial Structure, Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helsley, Robert W. (2003), ‘Urban Political Economics’, in Henderson, J. V. and Thisse, J.-F. (eds.), Handbook of Urban and Regional Economics, vol. 4, Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 2381–2421.Google Scholar
Helsley, Robert W. and Strange, William C. (1998), ‘Private Government’, Journal of Public Economics, 69: 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helsley, Robert W. and Strange, William C. (2000), ‘Social Interactions and the Institutions of Local Government’, The American Economic Review, 90 (5): 1477–1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, J. V. and Thisse, J. F. (2001), ‘On Strategic Community Development’, Journal of Political Economy, 109 (3): 546–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karp, Larry S. and Perloff, Jeffrey M. (1996), ‘The Optimal Suppression of a Low-Cost Technology by a Durable-Good Monopoly’, The Rand Journal of Economics, 27 (2): 346–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutsoati, Edward and Zabojnik, Jan (2001), ‘Durable Goods Monopoly, Learning-by-doing and “Sleeping Patents”’, Tufts University Department of Economics Discussion Papers.Google Scholar
MacCallum, Spencer Heath (1970), The Art of Community, Menlo Park, CA: Institute for Humane Studies.Google Scholar
Reich, Robert (1991), ‘Secession of the Successful’, New York Times Magazine, 42, 20 January.Google Scholar
Stokey, Nancy L. (1981), ‘Rational Expectations and Durable Goods Pricing’, The Bell Journal of Economics, 12 (1): 112–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiebout, Charles M. (1956), ‘A Pure Theory of Local Expenditure’, Journal of Political Economy, 64: 416–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tirole, Jean (1988), The Theory of Industrial Organization, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Waldman, Michael (1996), ‘Planned Obsolescence and the R&D Decision’, RAND Journal of Economics, 27 (3): 583–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldman, Michael (2003), ‘Durable Goods Theory for Real World Markets’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17 (1): 131–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheaton, W. C. (1979), ‘Monocentric Models of Urban Land Use: Contributions and Criticism’, in Mieszkowski, P. and Straszheim, M. (eds.), Current Issues in Urban Economics, Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Wheaton, W. C. and Di Pasquale, D. (1995), Urban Economics and Real Estate Markets, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Williamson, Oliver E. (1985), The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar