对科斯土地垄断模型的重新诠释:土地作为法律上和事实上的财产的区位特殊性和改善潜力

IF 5 1区 经济学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Lawrence W.C. Lai, K.W. Chau
{"title":"对科斯土地垄断模型的重新诠释:土地作为法律上和事实上的财产的区位特殊性和改善潜力","authors":"Lawrence W.C. Lai,&nbsp;K.W. Chau","doi":"10.1016/j.progress.2018.01.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>On the grounds of two unique features of land, <em>locational specificity</em> and <em>capacity for betterment</em> through <em>in-situ</em> entrepreneurial transformation, this monograph uses three real world examples to qualify Coase’s idea, mentioned in two of his works on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), that a state monopoly of land is <em>undesirable</em> for allocating land due to the huge transaction costs of non-price allocation. These two features of land enable the creation of institutional arrangements constraining such costs occasioned by rent-seeking or rent dissipation envisaged by Coase. Breaking new theoretical grounds in understanding planning beyond a matter of property rights assignment and attenuation, the three examples show that where the state has an effective monopoly of land supply, it does not behave like a private land monopoly but, subject to constrained rent-seeking, enables, and also possibly brings about the <em>betterment</em> of land and its redistribution by <em>government planning</em>. The examples, two of which testify to a Coase Theorem predicated on Coase’s first work on the FCC, also shed light on the question of property boundaries as an <em>ex ante</em> planning tool for <em>de jure</em> property or an <em>ex post</em> outcome of development. The monograph shows that the transaction costs of both dividing and recombining tradable land, as physically unitized into land parcels within a layout, are greater than partitioning and re-partitioning marketable segments of radio frequencies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47399,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Planning","volume":"131 ","pages":"Pages 1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.progress.2018.01.002","citationCount":"26","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A reinterpretation of Coase’s land monopoly model: Locational specificity and the betterment potential of land as de jure and de facto property\",\"authors\":\"Lawrence W.C. Lai,&nbsp;K.W. Chau\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.progress.2018.01.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>On the grounds of two unique features of land, <em>locational specificity</em> and <em>capacity for betterment</em> through <em>in-situ</em> entrepreneurial transformation, this monograph uses three real world examples to qualify Coase’s idea, mentioned in two of his works on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), that a state monopoly of land is <em>undesirable</em> for allocating land due to the huge transaction costs of non-price allocation. These two features of land enable the creation of institutional arrangements constraining such costs occasioned by rent-seeking or rent dissipation envisaged by Coase. Breaking new theoretical grounds in understanding planning beyond a matter of property rights assignment and attenuation, the three examples show that where the state has an effective monopoly of land supply, it does not behave like a private land monopoly but, subject to constrained rent-seeking, enables, and also possibly brings about the <em>betterment</em> of land and its redistribution by <em>government planning</em>. The examples, two of which testify to a Coase Theorem predicated on Coase’s first work on the FCC, also shed light on the question of property boundaries as an <em>ex ante</em> planning tool for <em>de jure</em> property or an <em>ex post</em> outcome of development. The monograph shows that the transaction costs of both dividing and recombining tradable land, as physically unitized into land parcels within a layout, are greater than partitioning and re-partitioning marketable segments of radio frequencies.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47399,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Progress in Planning\",\"volume\":\"131 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 1-15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.progress.2018.01.002\",\"citationCount\":\"26\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Progress in Planning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305900617302787\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Planning","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305900617302787","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

摘要

基于土地的两个独特特征,即区位特殊性和通过原位创业转型进行改善的能力,本专著使用了三个现实世界的例子来验证科斯在他关于联邦通信委员会(FCC)的两本著作中提到的观点,即由于非价格分配的巨大交易成本,国家对土地的垄断对土地分配是不可取的。土地的这两个特征使制度安排得以创造,以约束科斯所设想的寻租或租金耗散所引起的成本。这三个例子打破了理解规划的新理论基础,超越了产权分配和衰减的问题,表明在国家有效垄断土地供应的情况下,它的行为不像私人土地垄断,而是在受约束的寻租行为下,通过政府规划实现并可能带来土地的改善和再分配。这些例子,其中两个证明了科斯定理,这是科斯在联邦通信委员会的第一次工作中提出的,也揭示了财产边界作为法律财产的事前规划工具或发展的事后结果的问题。该专著表明,分割和重组可交易土地的交易成本,即在一个布局内物理上统一为地块的交易成本,大于分割和重新分割无线电频率的可交易部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A reinterpretation of Coase’s land monopoly model: Locational specificity and the betterment potential of land as de jure and de facto property

On the grounds of two unique features of land, locational specificity and capacity for betterment through in-situ entrepreneurial transformation, this monograph uses three real world examples to qualify Coase’s idea, mentioned in two of his works on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), that a state monopoly of land is undesirable for allocating land due to the huge transaction costs of non-price allocation. These two features of land enable the creation of institutional arrangements constraining such costs occasioned by rent-seeking or rent dissipation envisaged by Coase. Breaking new theoretical grounds in understanding planning beyond a matter of property rights assignment and attenuation, the three examples show that where the state has an effective monopoly of land supply, it does not behave like a private land monopoly but, subject to constrained rent-seeking, enables, and also possibly brings about the betterment of land and its redistribution by government planning. The examples, two of which testify to a Coase Theorem predicated on Coase’s first work on the FCC, also shed light on the question of property boundaries as an ex ante planning tool for de jure property or an ex post outcome of development. The monograph shows that the transaction costs of both dividing and recombining tradable land, as physically unitized into land parcels within a layout, are greater than partitioning and re-partitioning marketable segments of radio frequencies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
1.60%
发文量
26
审稿时长
34 days
期刊介绍: Progress in Planning is a multidisciplinary journal of research monographs offering a convenient and rapid outlet for extended papers in the field of spatial and environmental planning. Each issue comprises a single monograph of between 25,000 and 35,000 words. The journal is fully peer reviewed, has a global readership, and has been in publication since 1972.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信