On Hodgson on property rights

Allen, Douglas W.

doi:10.1017/s1744137415000132

Cited by 16 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For a critique of this approach, seeHodgson (2015). For rejoinders, seeAllen (2015) andBarzel (2015). For a recent complementary overview of Barzel's approach, seePiano and Rouanet (2018).3 More generally, for Barzel, any difference between net benefits when defining, protecting and/or exchange property rights consumes resources and when it does not constitutes "transaction costs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Logic is a harsh mistress: welfare economics for economists

Leeson

2019

Journal of Institutional Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Every economic explanation assumes maximization. How strange, then, that few economists accept one of maximization's most straightforward implications: every observed institution is efficient. My aim is to persuade economists of this fact and thus to dissuade them from making illogical claims about social welfare. To frame my argument, I consider the “property rights approach” to institutions developed by Yoram Barzel. I speculate that economists resist what maximization implies about institutional efficiency because they think that efficiency-always precludes them from improving the world, and hope of improving the world is what attracted them to economics in the first place. But, besides being inconsistent, resistance is unnecessary: efficiency-always does not preclude economists, or anyone else, from improving the world.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 2 For a critique of this approach, see Hodgson (2015). For rejoinders, see Allen (2015) and Barzel (2015). For a recent complementary overview of Barzel's approach, see Piano and Rouanet (2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Logic is a harsh mistress: welfare economics for economists

Leeson

2019

Journal of Institutional Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The genesis of this debate was Hodgson's (2015a) assertion that property rights economics devalued legal rights. However others such as Allen (2015) and Barzel (2015) disagree with this assertion, thus igniting debate on 'possession', 'property rights', 'economic rights' and 'legal rights' (see Hodgson, 2015a, b;Allen, 2015;Barzel, 2015;Cole, 2015). In this debate Benito Arrunada seems to support Hodgson's (2015a) position because he also asserted that economic analysis of property rights has disregarded the key advantages of legal property rights (Arrunada, 2012).…”

Section: Theoretical Viewpointmentioning

confidence: 99%

Major Determinant of Physical Development on Urban Residential Land: The Case of Kalulushi Municipality in Zambia

Munshifwa¹,

Ngoma²,

Makenja³

2017

IJSSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The debate on "property" as opposed to "possession" has grown in institutional economics literature. In the real estate development context this can be extended to examining the question on what the major determinant of commencement of physical development (or 'house starts') is between 'property' and 'possession' in the minds of residential allotees on urban land. For land acquired through extra-legal mechanisms, economists, such as Hermandode Soto, have argued that lack of title impedes physical development in urban areas. What about on land acquired through legal means? This study examined this question by conceptualising land grants through the public land allocation system as having two distinct parts, possession, that is grants still at offer letter stage and property, constituting grants where legal title in the form of certificates of title have been registered. The observation in Zambia is that physical development commences with or without certificates of title, that is, mostly at possession stage. This study finds that contrary to conventional literature, titling is not the immediate concern for most allotees on public land. The first concern is development of the plot then followed by title. A number of reasons account for this and are explained in this paper. Thus the study hypothesised that although in the long run legal title is essential, possession is more important for the commencement of physical development in most developing countries such as Zambia.

show abstract

“…In the example discussed by Cole and Grossman (2002) cited above, it is characterized a usage -the polluter acts based on self interest as long as possible, which does not transform the actual usage in a right. 31 Check the debate between Hodgson (2015), Cole (2015), Barzel (2015), and Allen (2015).…”

Section: And What Are Property Rights For Economists?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But anyway, could those differences -between economic and legal approachesbe considered just as a mere nominalistic issue, like Allen (2015) proposes 37 ? It is true that the differences can lead to some confusion, but would it not be enough to identify what each discipline defines as the meaning of the same word?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

"Property" Rights and the Ways of Protecting Entitlements - An Interdisciplinary Approach

Mello

2016

Rev. econ. contemp.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the concept of "property" rights in an interdisciplinary perspective (Law and Economics) in order to compose an analytical conceptual framework to issues related to appropriability involved in public goods (PG) and common pool resources (CPR) analysis. Firstly, we discuss the differences between legal and economic concepts of property rights, trying to integrate economic and legal analytical elements: a right is an opportunity for current or future uses of an asset that is guaranteed by legal system (an enforceable power to maintain the control over economic opportunities). Although economists may not be concerned if some opportunity is guaranteed (or not) by law, nor whether its entitlement is made by means of property or by some other kind of right, these differences also matter for economic analysis. To deal with this question, we need to open the "black box" of the so called "property" rights: a) identifying and analyzing the different ways in which rights are entitled -from a legal perspective (Hohfeld) and in the footsteps of studies analyzing the economic relevance of the differences between property and possession, or property, liability and inalienability (Calabresi and Melamed); b) breaking down the concept of property rights in many faculties and analyzing them as a bundle of rights (Schlager and Ostrom). By way of conclusion, we discuss the possibilities of integrating these approaches and explore some of the implications of the study. From a public policies perspective, a more detailed understanding may assist in policy formulation (e.g., to break down and assign specific rights to different holders, etc.), and designing new forms of entitlements, or even the creation of new "assets" that could become the subject of rights.Keywords: property rights; entitlements; bundle of rights; law and economics. JeL: K11.Corresponding author: Maria Tereza C. Leopardi Email address: leopardi@ie.ufrj.br MEllo, M. T. l."Property" rights and the ways of protecting entitlements -An interdisciplinary approach 431 PROPRIEDADE E OUTRAS FORMAS DE PROTEÇÃO DE DIREITOS -UMA ABORDAGEM INTERDISCIPLINARresumo: Este trabalho discute o conceito de direitos de "propriedade" numa perspectiva interdisciplinar (direito e economia), de modo a compor um quadro conceitual para análise de questões relacionadas à apropriabilidade relacionadas a bens pú-blicos e common pool resources. Primeiramente, discutem-se as diferenças entre os conceitos jurídico e econômico de propriedade, buscando-se integrar os elementos analíticos das duas disciplinas: um direito é uma oportunidade de uso -atual ou futuro -de um ativo garantida pelo sistema jurídico (uma forma de manter o controle sobre oportunidades econômicas). Embora os economistas não se preocupem em saber se uma oportunidade é ou não garantida pelo sistema jurídico, tampouco se a garantia se faz por meio de propriedade ou outros tipos de proteção legal, tais diferenças importam para a análise econômica. Para tratar dessa questão, é necessário abrir a "caixa p...

show abstract

On Hodgson on property rights

Cited by 16 publications

References 9 publications

Logic is a harsh mistress: welfare economics for economists

Logic is a harsh mistress: welfare economics for economists

Major Determinant of Physical Development on Urban Residential Land: The Case of Kalulushi Municipality in Zambia

"Property" Rights and the Ways of Protecting Entitlements - An Interdisciplinary Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About