Skip to main content
Log in

Rent seeking and the value of time

  • Published:
Journal of Economics and Finance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper focuses on the question of how rivals’ rent-seeking expenditures and investment expenditures are affected by the temporal dimension of those cash flows as well as the timing of the cash flow of monopoly rents. The paper applies methods from statistical reliability theory to derive five propositions establishing the conditions that must be satisfied if the rivals apportion their rent seeking and investment expenditures to maximize their certainty equivalents of the monopoly rent. The propositions explicate the responses of the rivals to changes in economic parameters characterizing the rent-seeking contest such as a change in the duration of the monopoly rent cash flow or a change in the number of rivals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Appelbaum, E., and E. Katz. 1987. “Seeking Rents by Setting Rents: The Political Economy of Rent Seeking”.Economic Journal 97: 685–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baik, K.H.. 1999. “Rent-Seeking Firms, Consumer Groups, and the Social Costs of Monopoly.”Economic Inquiry 37: 541–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baik, K.H., and Sanghack Lee. 2001. “Strategic Groups and Rent Dissipation.”Economic Inquiry 39: 672–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhat, U. Narayan. 1972.Elements of Applied Stochastic Processes. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Che, Yeon-koo, and Ian Gale. 1997. “Rent Dissipation When Rent Seekers Are Budget Constrained.“Public Choice 92: 109–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esty, Daniel C., and Richard E. Caves. 1983. “Market Structure and Political Influence: New Data on Political Expenditures, Activity, and Success.”Economic Inquiry 21: 24–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Franklin M. 1985. “The Social Costs of Monopoly and Regulation: Posner Reconsidered.”Journal of Political Economy 93: 410–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A.L., and E. Katz. 1984. “Risk-Averse Rent Seekers and the Social Cost of Monopoly Power.”Economic Journal 94: 104–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A.L., and John G. Riley. 1989. “Politically Contestable Rents and Transfers.”Economics and Politics 1: 17–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirshleifer, Jack 1989. “Conflict and Rent-Seeking Success Functions: Ratio vs. Difference Models of Relative Success.”Public Choice 63: 101–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurley, T.M., and J.F. Shogren. 1998. “Effort Levels in a Cournot Nash Contest with Asymmetric Information.”Journal of Public Economics 69: 195–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jagannathan, V.N. 1986. “Corruption, Delivery Systems and Property Rights.”World Development 14: 127–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlin, Samuel, and Howard M. Taylor. 1975.A First Course in Stochastic Processes. 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, Anne O. 1974. “The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society.”American Economic Review 64: 291–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leininger, William. 1993. “More Efficient Rent-Seeking—A Munchhausen Solution.”Public Choice 75: 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leininger, William, and Chun-Lei Yang. 1994. “Dynamic Rent-Seeking Games.”Games and Economic Behavior 7: 406–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, R.E., W.F. Shughart II, and R.D. Tollison. 1984. “The Disinterest in Deregulation.”American Economic Review 74: 1075–1079.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mantell, Edmund H. 1996. “The Social Costs of Monopoly and Regulation: Posner Reconsidered Again.”Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 36: 249–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, Dennis C. 1997. “First-Mover Advantages and Path Dependence.”International Journal of Industrial Organization 15: 827–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 2003.Public Choice III Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nitzan, S. 1994. “Modelling Rent-Seeking Contests.”European Journal of Political Economy 10: 41–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peltzman, Sam. 1989. “The Economic Theory of Regulation after a Decade of Deregulation.”Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics: 1–59.

  • Poitras, Marc, and Daniel Sutter. 2000. “Enhancing Efficiency or Crying Over Spilled Milk.”Public Choice 105: 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, Richard. A. 1975. “The Social Costs of Monopoly and Regulation.”Journal of Political Economy 83: 807–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, Sheldon M. 1985.Introduction to Probability Models. 3rd. ed. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein, M. 1992. “Merton Miller'sFinancial Innovations and Market Volatility.”Journal of Finance 47: 819–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sylwester, K. 2001. “A Model of Institutional Formation Within a Rent Seeking Environment.”Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 44: 169–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tullock, Gordon. “The Welfare Costs of Tariffs, Monopolies and Theft.”Western Economic Journal 5: 224–232.

  • Tullock, Gordon. 1980. “Efficient Rent Seeking.” InToward a Theory of the Rent Seeking Society, edited by J.M. Buchanan, R.D. Tollison, and G. Tullock. College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edmund H. Mantell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mantell, E.H. Rent seeking and the value of time. J Econ Finan 29, 221–241 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02761555

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02761555

Keywords

Navigation