Econ 522
Economics of Law
Dan Quint
Fall 2010
Lecture 5
Monday…
 Coase Theorem: in the absence of transaction costs,
if property rights are well-defined and tradable, we’ll
always get efficiency


Or: if property rights are complete enough, we can overcome
externalities
Or, if conditions are perfect, initial allocation of rights doesn’t matter
(for efficiency)
 But if there are transaction costs, this breaks down
 Today:


Demsetz – when will property rights expand?
Transaction costs
1
Demsetz
2
ORIGINAL GAME
MODIFIED GAME
Player 2
Player 2
Farm
Steal
Farm
10, 10
-5, 12
Steal
12, -5
0, 0
Farm
Player 1
Player 1
We motivated property law by looking at a
game between two neighboring farmers
Steal
Farm 10 – c, 10 – c -5 – c, 12 – P
Steal 12 – P, -5 – c
-P, -P
 Changing the game had two effects:
 Allowed us to cooperate by not stealing from each other
 Introduced a cost c of administering a property rights system
3
Harold Demsetz (1967), “Toward a Theory of
Property Rights”
 “A primary function of property rights is that of guiding
incentives to achieve a greater internalization of
externalities”
 “[ In order for an externality to persist, ] The cost of a
transaction in the rights between the parties… must exceed
the gains from internalization.”
 “Property rights develop to internalize externalities when
the gains from internalization become larger than the
cost of internalization.”
4
Harold Demsetz (1967), “Toward a Theory of
Property Rights”
 “Property rights develop to internalize externalities when
the gains from internalization become larger than the
cost of internalization.”
 Private ownership of land among Native Americans


Cost of administering private ownership: medium
Before fur trade…


externality was small, so gains from internalization were small
gains < costs  no private ownership of land
5
Harold Demsetz (1967), “Toward a Theory of
Property Rights”
 “Property rights develop to internalize externalities when
the gains from internalization become larger than the
cost of internalization.”
 Private ownership of land among Native Americans


Cost of administering private ownership: medium
Before fur trade…



externality was small, so gains from internalization were small
gains < costs  no private ownership of land
As fur trading developed…


externality grew, so gains from internalization grew
gains > costs  private property rights developed
6
Friedman tells a similar story: “we owe
civilization to the dogs”
The date is 10,000 or 11,000 B.C. You are a member of a
primitive tribe that farms its land in common. Farming land in
common is a pain; you spend almost as much time watching
each other and arguing about who is or is not doing his share as
you do scratching the ground with pointed sticks and pulling
weeds.
…It has occurred to several of you that the problem would
disappear if you converted the common land to private property.
Each person would farm his own land; if your neighbor chose not
to work very hard, it would be he and his children, not you and
yours, that would go hungry.
7
Friedman tells a similar story: “we owe
civilization to the dogs”
There is a problem with this solution… Private property does
not enforce itself. Someone has to make sure that the lazy
neighbor doesn’t solve his food shortage at your expense.
[Now] you will have to spend your nights making sure they are
not working hard harvesting your fields. All things considered,
you conclude that communal farming is the least bad solution.
8
Friedman tells a similar story: “we owe
civilization to the dogs”
Agricultural land continues to be treated as a commons for
another thousand years, until somebody makes a radical
technological innovation: the domestication of the dog.
Dogs, being territorial animals, can be taught to identify their
owner’s property as their territory and respond appropriately to
trespassers. Now you can convert to private property in
agricultural land and sleep soundly. Think of it as the bionic
burglar alarm.
-Friedman, Law’s Order, p. 118
9
So…
 Coase: if property rights are complete and tradable, we’ll
always get efficiency

or, we can eliminate externalities by introducing trade in missing
markets – that is, by making property rights more complete
 Demsetz:




yes, but this comes at a cost
property rights will expand when the benefits outweigh the costs
either because the benefits rise…
…or because the costs fall
 The costs Demsetz was talking about are straightforward…
 …but let’s go back to the transaction costs of Coase
10
Transaction
Costs
11
What are transaction costs?
 Anything that makes it difficult or expensive for two parties
to achieve a mutually beneficial trade
 Three categories



Search costs – difficulty in finding a trading partner
Bargaining costs – difficulty in reaching an agreement
Enforcement costs – difficulty in enforcing the agreement
afterwards
12
Bargaining costs come in many forms
 Asymmetric information

Akerloff (1970), “The Market for Lemons” – adverse selection
13
Bargaining costs come in many forms
 Asymmetric information

Akerloff (1970), “The Market for Lemons” – adverse selection
 Private information (don’t know each others’ threat points)

Myerson and Satterthwaite (1983), “Efficient Mechanisms for
Bilateral Trading” – always some chance of inefficiency
14
Bargaining costs come in many forms
 Asymmetric information

Akerloff (1970), “The Market for Lemons” – adverse selection
 Private information (don’t know each others’ threat points)

Myerson and Satterthwaite (1983), “Efficient Mechanisms for
Bilateral Trading” – always some chance of inefficiency
 Uncertainty

If property rights are ambiguous, threat points are uncertain, and
bargaining is difficult
15
Bargaining costs come in many forms
 Large numbers of parties


Developer values large area of land at $1,000,000
10 homeowners, each value their plot at $80,000
16
Bargaining costs come in many forms
 Large numbers of parties



Developer values large area of land at $1,000,000
10 homeowners, each value their plot at $80,000
Holdout, freeriding
 Hostility
17
Sources of transaction costs
 Search costs
 Bargaining costs





Asymmetric information/adverse selection
Private information/not knowing each others’ threat points
Uncertainty about property rights/threat points
Large numbers of buyers/sellers – holdout, freeriding
Hostility
 Enforcement costs
18
So, what
do we do?
19
What we know so far…
 No transaction costs  initial allocation of rights doesn’t
matter for efficiency

wherever they start, people will trade until efficiency is achieved
 Significant transaction costs  initial allocation does matter,
since trade may not occur (and is costly if it does)
 This leads to two normative approaches we could take
20
Two normative approaches to property law
 Design the law to minimize transaction costs



“Structure the law so as to remove the impediments to private
agreements”
Normative Coase
“Lubricate” bargaining
21
Two normative approaches to property law
 Design the law to minimize transaction costs



“Structure the law so as to remove the impediments to private
agreements”
Normative Coase
“Lubricate” bargaining
 Try to allocate rights efficiently to start with, so
bargaining doesn’t matter that much


“Structure the law so as to minimize the harm caused by failures
in private agreements”
Normative Hobbes
22
Which approach should we use?
 Compare cost of each approach


Normative Coase: cost of transacting, and remaining inefficiencies
Normative Hobbes: cost of figuring out how to allocate rights
efficiently (information costs)
 When transaction costs are low and information costs
are high, structure the law so as to minimize transaction
costs
 When transaction costs are high and information
costs are low, structure the law to allocate property
rights to whoever values them the most
23
Designing an efficient
property law system
24
Four questions we need to answer
what can be privately owned?
what can an owner do?
how are property rights established?
what remedies are given?
25
Calabresi and Melamed treat property and
liability under a common framework
 Calabresi and Melamed (1972), Property Rules, Liability
Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral
 Liability

Is the rancher liable for the damage done by his herd?
 Property

Does the farmer’s right to his property include the right to be free
from trespassing cows?
 Entitlements


Is the farmer entitled to land free from trespassing animals?
Or is the rancher entitled to the natural actions of his cattle?
26
Three possible ways to protect an
entitlement
 Property rule / injunctive relief


Violation of my entitlement is punished as a crime
Injunction: court order clarifying a right and specifically barring any
future violation
27
Three possible ways to protect an
entitlement
 Property rule / injunctive relief


Violation of my entitlement is punished as a crime
Injunction: court order clarifying a right and specifically barring any
future violation
 Liability rule / damages


Damages are a payment to a victim to compensate for actual
damage done
Better when prior negotiation is impossible
 Inalienability
28
Comparing property/injunctive relief to
liability/damages rule
 Injuree (person whose entitlement is violated) always
prefers a property rule
 Injurer always prefers a damages rule
 Why?



Punishment for violating a property rule is severe
If the two sides need to negotiate to trade the right, injurer’s threat
point is lower
Even if both rules eventually lead to the same outcome, injurer may
have to pay more
29
Comparing injunctive relief to
damages – example
E profits = 1,000
L profits = 300  100
E prevention = 500
L prevention = 100
 Electric company E emits smoke, dirties the laundry at a
laundromat L next door
 E earns profits of 1,000
 Without smoke, L earns profits of 300
 Smoke reduces L’s profits from 300 to 100
 E could stop polluting at cost 500
 L could prevent the damage at cost 100
30
First, we consider the
non-cooperative outcomes
E profits = 1,000
L profits = 300  100
E prevention = 500
L prevention = 100
 Polluter’s Rights (no remedy)


E earns 1,000
L installs filters, earns 300 – 100 = 200
 Laundromat has right to damages


E earns 1,000, pays damages of 200  800
L earns 100, gets damages of 200  300
 Laundromat has right to injunction


E installs scrubbers, earns 1,000 – 500 = 500
L earns 300
31
E profits = 1,000
L profits = 300  100
E prevention = 500
L prevention = 100
Noncooperative payoffs
Polluter’s Rights
Damages
Injunction
E payoff
(non-coop)
1,000
800
500
L payoff
(non-coop)
200
300
300
1,200
1,100
800
Combined payoff
(non-coop)
32
What about with bargaining?
Polluter’s Rights
Damages
E profits = 1,000
L profits = 300  100
E prevention = 500
L prevention = 100
Injunction
E payoff
(non-coop)
1,000
800
500
L payoff
(non-coop)
200
300
300
Combined payoff
(non-coop)
1,200
1,100
800
Gains from Coop
0
100
400
E payoff (coop)
1,000
800 + ½850
(100)
500 + ½
(400)
700
L payoff (coop)
200
300 + ½350
(100)
300 + ½
(400)
500
Combined
1,200
1,200
1,200
33
How do we choose between the rules?
 In this case…


Polluter’s rights > damages > injunction when there is no
bargaining
All three equally efficient when there is bargaining
 Normative Hobbes: allocate rights efficiently to begin with

Polluter’s rights in this case, no reason to believe this more
generally
 Normative Coase: just work to lower transaction costs, let
people negotiate when they need to
 So what do we do?
34
How do we choose between the rules?
 Injunctions are cheaper for court to implement

No need to calculate exact amount of damage done
 Damages are more efficient when private bargaining fails
 Leads Calabresi and Melamed to the following conclusion:
When transaction costs are high,
a liability rule (damages) is more efficient
When transaction costs are low,
a property rule (injunctive relief) is more efficient
35
So that’s our answer:
 Calabresi and Melamed
When transaction costs are high,
a liability rule (damages) is more efficient
When transaction costs are low,
a property rule (injunctive relief) is more efficient
 Why are damages more efficient when bargaining fails?




Under damages rule, injurer has two choices: prevent the damage,
or pay cost afterwards
Under injunction, injurer has only one choice: prevent the damage
Injuree is compensated, so doesn’t matter to him
So whichever is cheaper for injurer, is more efficient
36
High transaction costs  damages
Low transaction costs  injunctive relief
“Private bargaining is unlikely to succeed in disputes
involving a large number of geographically dispersed
strangers because communication costs are high,
monitoring is costly, and strategic behavior is likely to
occur. Large numbers of land owners are typically affected
by nuisances, such as air pollution or the stench from a
feedlot. In these cases, damages are the preferred
remedy.
On the other hand, property disputes generally involve a
small number of parties who live near each other and
can monitor each others’ behavior easily after reaching a
deal; so injunctive relief is usually used in these cases.”
(Cooter and Ulen) 37
A different view of the high-transaction-costs
case…
“When transaction costs preclude bargaining, the court
should protect a right by an injunctive remedy if it knows
which party values the right relatively more and it does not
know how much either party values it absolutely.
Conversely, the court should protect a right by a damages
remedy if it knows how much one of the parties values the
right absolutely and it does not know which party values it
relatively more.”
(Cooter and Ulen)
38
Low transaction costs  injunctive relief
 Cheaper for the court to administer
 With low transaction costs, we expect parties to negotiate
privately if the right is not assigned efficiently
 But… do they really?


Ward Farnsworth (1999), Do Parties to Nuisance Cases Bargain
After Judgment? A Glimpse Inside The Cathedral
20 nuisance cases: no bargaining after judgment
“In almost every case the lawyers said that acrimony between
the parties was an important obstacle to bargaining…
Frequently the parties were not on speaking terms...
…The second recurring obstacle involves the parties’
disinclination to think of the rights at stake… as readily
commensurable with cash.”
39
Third remedy: inalienability
 Inalienability: when an entitlement is not transferable or
saleable
40
what can be privately owned?
what can an owner do?
how are property rights established?
what remedies are given?
41