Review of Industrial Organization

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 203–220 | Cite as

The Rationality of U.S. Regulation of the Broadcast Spectrum in the 1934 Communications Act

  • Thomas W. Hazlett


The Federal Radio Commission regulated radio broadcasting, 1927–1934. With the passage of the Communications Act of 1934, the 1927 Radio Act (enabling the Commission) was re-enacted in whole. This congressional endorsement yields key evidence as to what policy outcomes were intended, differentiating competing theories for the origins of spectrum allocation law: Coase (J Law Econ 2(1):1–40, 1959), emphasizing policy error; Hazlett (J Law Econ 33:133–175, 1990), focusing on “franchise rents” in a public choice framework; and the “public interest” hypothesis, reconstructed by Moss and Fein (J Policy Hist 15(4):389–416, 2003). Congress’ revealed preferences prove consistent with the franchise rents theory, while contradicting the other two.


Political economy Spectrum allocation Rent-seeking Public interest 



The author thanks Michelle Connolly and Lawrence J. White for useful input. Ariel Blask, Brent Skorup and Ryan Tacher provided excellent research assistance. All errors are solely attributable to the author.


  1. Barnouw, E. (1966). A tower in Babel. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bazelon, D. (1975). FCC regulation of the Telecommunications Press. Duke Law Journal, 1975(2), 213–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caldwell, L. (1929). Clearing the Ether’s Traffic Jams. Nation’s Business, 33–34.Google Scholar
  4. Coase, R. H. (1959). The Federal Communications Commission. Journal of Law & Economics, 2(1), 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coase, R. H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law & Economics, 3(1), 23–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. FRC. (1927). Annual report of the Federal Radio Commission.Google Scholar
  7. Hazlett, T. W. (1990). The rationality of U.S. regulation of the broadcast spectrum. Journal of Law & Economics, 33, 133–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hazlett, T. W. (1997). Physical scarcity, rent seeking and the first amendment. Columbia Law Review, 97(4), 905–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hazlett, T. W. (1998). Assigning property rights to radio spectrum users: Why did FCC license auctions take 67 years? Journal of Law & Economics, 41(2), 529–575.Google Scholar
  10. Hazlett, T. W. (2009). Ronald H. Coase. In L. Cohen & J. Wright (Eds.), Pioneers in law and economics. Northampton Massachusetts: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  11. Hazlett, T. W., Oh, S., & Clark, D. (2010). The overly active corpse of red lion. Northwestern Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property, 9(3), 51–95.Google Scholar
  12. Hazlett, T. W., Porter, D., & Smith, V. (2011). Radio spectrum and the disruptive clarity of Ronald Coase. Journal of Law & Economics, 54(4), S125–S165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Krattenmaker, T., & Powe, L. A, Jr. (1994). Regulating boadcast programming. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lueck, D. (1995). The rule of first possession and the design of the law. Journal of Law & Economics, 38(2), 393–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McChesney, R. W. (1994). Telecommunications, mass media & democracy: The battle for control of U.S. broadcasting 1928–1935. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Moss, D. A., & Fein, M. R. (2003). Radio regulation revisited: Coase, the FCC, and the public interest. Journal of Policy History, 15(4), 389–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pool, I. D. S. (1983). Technologies of freedom. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  18. Spitzer, M. L. (1989). The constitutionality of licensing broadcasters. N.Y.U. Law Review, 64, 990–1072.Google Scholar
  19. Stigler, G. J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics & Management Science, 2(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. TRAC. (1986). Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. FCC, 801 F.2d 501 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (Bork, J. concurring).Google Scholar
  21. Tribe, L. (2007). Plenary address—Freedom of speech and press in the 21s century: New technology meets old constitutionalism. In Progress & Freedom Foundation. Aspen Summit, August 20.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.H.H. Macaulay Endowed Professor of EconomicsClemson UniversityClemsonUSA

Personalised recommendations