Eminent Domain for Private Use
The alleged market-failure “justification” for using eminent domain to obtain property for a private development is that compulsory transfers are necessary in order to overcome holdout problems. After all, this argument continues, only the state has such power, so the private sector would be unable to supply the efficient amount of land-extensive developments. This market-failure justification is examined from two different perspectives in order to demonstrate that it is not efficacious. Section 2 provides a direct examination of the alleged holdout problem to demonstrate that, while government entities may face significant holdouts, the magnitude of any market failure that might actually exist with a private development is much less significant than this argument assumes. Section 3 follows with an examination of the actual historical evolution of eminent domain powers and its accompanying requirement for compensation to illustrate that the actual development reflects repeated efforts to constrain government rather than to solve market failures. Section 4 explains that, as with earlier efforts to constrain government, the United States’ constitutional requirements of public use and just compensation have gradually broken down. As a consequence, eminent domain powers actually result in substantial government failure. Therefore, even if there is a potential market-failure, the high likelihood of government failure undermines the claim that eminent domain is an appropriate solution to the market failure. The concluding comments in Section 5 point out, however, that eminent domain is only one type of government takings.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Austin, Page. 2002. Cypress Invokes Eminent Domain to Seize Church Land. Orange County Register. OCRegister.com, May 29.
- Barnes, David W. and Lynn A. Stout. 1992. Cases and Materials on Law and Economics. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- —. 2004. Opportunities Forgone: the Unmeasurable Costs of Regulation. Journal of Private Enterprise 19 (2): 1–25.Google Scholar
- —. 2005a. Regulation, More Regulation, Partial Deregulation, and Reregulation: The Dynamics of a Rent-Seeking Society. Advances in Austrian Economics 8: 107–146.Google Scholar
- —. 2005b. The Mythology of Holdout as Justification for Eminent Domain and Public Provision of Roads. The Independent Review: A Journal of Political Economy 10 (2): 165–194.Google Scholar
- —. 2006. Do Holdout Problems Justify Compulsory Right-of-Way Purchase and Public Provision of Roads? In Street Smart: Competition, Entrepreneurship and the Future of Roads, Gabriel Roth, ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 43–78.Google Scholar
- —. 2008. The Evolution of Eminent Domain: Market Failure or an Effort to Limit Government Power and Government Failure. The Independent Review: A Journal of Political Economy 12 (3): 423–432.Google Scholar
- Berliner, Dana. 2002. Government Theft: The Top 10 Abuses of Eminent Domain, 1998–2002. Report from the Castle Coalition: Citizens Fighting Eminent Domain Abuse (March), www.CastleCoalition.org.
- De Vries, S. and R.V. Vohra. 2001. Combination Auctions: A Survey. Zentrum Mathematik Working Paper. October.Google Scholar
- Eagle, Steven J. 2002. The Development of Property Rights in America and the Property Rights Movement. Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy 1: 77–129.Google Scholar
- —. 2006. Regulatory Takings, 3d ed. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
- Engel, Eduardo, Ronald Fischer, and Alexander Galetovic. 2002. Highway Franchising and Real Estate Values. NBER Working Paper No. 8803, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, February.Google Scholar
- Epstein, Richard A. 1985. Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- —. 2001. In and Out of Public Solution: The Hidden Perils of Property Transfer. John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No. 129. Chicago: Law School, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
- Fischel, William A. 1995. Regulatory Takings: Law, Economics, and Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Greenhouse, Linda. 2002. Justice Weaken Movement Backing Property Rights. New York Times, (April 24). www.nytimes.com.
- Gunderson, Gerald. 1989. Privatization and the 19th-Century Turnpike. Cato Journal 9: 191–200.Google Scholar
- Hamilton, Alexander. 1788 . The Federalist No. 84. The Fderalist Papers. Ed. C. Rossiter. New York: Mentor.Google Scholar
- Johnson, Ronald N. and Gary D. Libecap. 1982. Contracting Problems and Regulation: The Case of the Fishery. American Economic Review 72: 1005–1022.Google Scholar
- Jones, Stephen J. 2000. Trumping Eminent Domain Law: An Argument for Strict Scrutiny Analysis under the Public Use Requirement of the Fifth Amendment. Syracuse Law Review 50: 285–314.Google Scholar
- Krier, James E. and Stewart J. Schwab. 1995. Property Rules and Liability Rules: The Cathedral in Another Light. New York University Law Review 70: 440–483.Google Scholar
- Kraus, Michael I. 2000. Property Rules vs. Liability Rules. In the Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, Vol. 3, edited by B. Bouckaert and G. De Geest. Chelthenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 782–794.Google Scholar
- Krueger, Anne O. 1974. The Political Economy of a Rent-Seeking Society. American Economic Review 64: 291–303.Google Scholar
- Kulick, Peter J. 2000. Rolling the Dice: Determining Public Use in Order to Effectuate a “Public-Private Taking”-a Proposal to Redefine “Public Use.” Law Review ofMichigan State University-Detroit College of Law 3: 639–691.Google Scholar
- Landsburg, Steven E. 1993. The Armchair Economist: Economics & Everyday Life. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Laster, Richard E. 1970. Criminal Restitution: A Survey of Its Past History and an Analysis of Its Present Usefulness. University of Richmond Law Review (Fall): 71–80.Google Scholar
- Levi, Margaret. 1988. Of Rule and Revenue. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- López, Edward J. and Sasha M. Totah. 2007. Kelo and Its Discontents: The Worst (or Best) Thing to Happen to Property Rights. The Independent Review: A Journal of Political Economy 11 (3): 397–416.Google Scholar
- Lyon, Bryce. 1980. A Constitutional and Legal History of Medieval England, 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
- Mansnerus, Laura. 2001. Refusing to Let Go, Property Owners Test Eminent Domain’s Limits. New York Times: July 25.Google Scholar
- Miceli, Thomas J. and Kathleen Segerson. 2000. In the Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, Vol. 3., edited by B. Bouckaert and G. De Geest. Chelthenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 328–357.Google Scholar
- NCPA (National Center for Policy Analysis). 2002. State and Local Issues: Eminent Domain Used for Economic Development. National Center for Policy Analysis: Idea House (March 5): www.ncpa.org/pd/state/pd12298b.html
- Paul, Ellen F. 1988. Property Rights and Eminent Domain. New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions Books.Google Scholar
- Pollock, Frederick and Frederick William Maitland. 1959. The History of English Law. Washington, DC: Lawyers’ Literary Club.Google Scholar
- Roth, Gabriel. 1996. Roads in a Market Economy. Aldershot, UK: Avebury Technical.Google Scholar
- Starkie, David N. M. 1990. The Private Financing of Road Infrastructure. Transportation and Society Discussion Paper No. 11. Oxford University.Google Scholar
- Starkman, Dean. 2001. In the Clash of Eminent Domain and Private Property, Courts are Sending Cities a Message: Enough. The Wall Street Journal: WSJ.com—From the Archives (July 23).Google Scholar
- —. 2002. Most Important Case in Years to Curb Local Government Use of Eminent Domain Powers. Wall Street Journal: WSJ.com-Law (April 5).
- Stephen, James F. 1883. A History of the Criminal Law of England. New York: Burt Franklin.Google Scholar
- Stoebuck, William B. 1977. Nontrespassory Takings in Eminent Domain. Charlottesville, VA.: Michie Company.Google Scholar
- Tullock, Gordon. 1967. The Welfare Costs of Tariffs, Monopolies and Theft. Western Economic Journal 5: 224–232.Google Scholar