Book contents
- Understanding Economic Change
- Understanding Economic Change
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Conceptual and Methodological Problems
- Part III Perspectives on Evolutionary Macroeconomics
- Part IV Advances in Explaining and Assessing Institutional Evolution
- 7 Democracy, Rationality and Religion
- 8 On the Evolution of Organisational Governance
- 9 Strategic Interaction and Externalities
- 10 Fairness in Urban Land Use
- Part V Evolutionary Perspectives on Welfare and Sustainability
- Index
- References
10 - Fairness in Urban Land Use
An Evolutionary Contribution to Law and Economics
from Part IV - Advances in Explaining and Assessing Institutional Evolution
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 November 2018
Book contents
- Understanding Economic Change
- Understanding Economic Change
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Conceptual and Methodological Problems
- Part III Perspectives on Evolutionary Macroeconomics
- Part IV Advances in Explaining and Assessing Institutional Evolution
- 7 Democracy, Rationality and Religion
- 8 On the Evolution of Organisational Governance
- 9 Strategic Interaction and Externalities
- 10 Fairness in Urban Land Use
- Part V Evolutionary Perspectives on Welfare and Sustainability
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Understanding Economic ChangeAdvances in Evolutionary Economics, pp. 309 - 340Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Aranson, P. H. 1986. Economic Efficiency and the Common Law: A Critical Survey. In: Schulenburg, J. M. v. d. and Skogh, G. (eds.) Law and Economics and the Economics of Legal Regulation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Babcock, L. and Loewenstein, G. 1997. Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11, 109–126.Google Scholar
Baumol, W. J. and Bradford, D. F. 1972. Detrimental Externalities and Non-Convexity of the Production Set. Economica, 39, 160–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binmore, K. 2006. The Origins of Fair Play. Jena, Germany: Max Planck Inst. of Economics, Evolutionary Economics Group.Google Scholar
Blume, L., Rubinfeld, D. L., and Shapiro, P. 1984. The Taking of Land: When Should Compensation Be Paid? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98, 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromley, D. W. 1997. Constitutional Political Economy: Property Claims in a Dynamic World. Contemporary Economic Policy, 15, 43–54.Google Scholar
Calabresi, G. and Melamed, A. D. 1972. Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral. Harvard Law Review, 85, 1089–1128.Google Scholar
Canaris, C.-W. 1993. Funktion, Struktur und Falsifikation juristischer Theorien. Juristenzeitung 48, 377–391.Google Scholar
Coase, R. H. 1960. The Problem of Social Cost. The Journal of Law & Economics, 3, 1–44.Google Scholar
Coase, R. H. 1988. The Firm, the Market, and the Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. L. and Murphy, J. G. 1990. Philosophy of Law. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Cooter, R. D. 2000. Law from Order: Economic Development and the Jurisprudence of Social Norms. In: Olson, M. and Kähkönen, S. (eds.) A Not-So-Dismal Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cordes, C. and Schubert, C. 2007. Toward a Naturalistic Foundation of the Social Contract. Constitutional Political Economy, 18, 35–62.Google Scholar
Daniels, N. 1979. Wide Reflective Equilibrium and Theory Acceptance in Ethics. The Journal of Philosophy, 76, 256–282.Google Scholar
Demsetz, H. 1972. When Does the Rule of Liability Matter? The Journal of Legal Studies, 1, 13–28.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, I. and Posner, R. A. 1974. An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking. The Journal of Legal Studies, 3, 257–286.Google Scholar
Ellickson, R. C. 1995. Order without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, R. A. 1985. Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U. 2002. Why Social Preferences Matter – The Impact of Non-Selfish Motives on Competition, Cooperation and Incentives. The Economic Journal, 112, C1–C33.Google Scholar
Fischel, W. A. 1985. The Economics of Zoning Laws. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Fischel, W. A. and Shapiro, P. 1989. A Constitutional Choice Model of Compensation for Takings. International Review of Law and Economics, 9, 115–128.Google Scholar
Frey, B. S., Oberholzer-Gee, F., and Eichenberger, R. 1996. The Old Lady Visits Your Backyard: A Tale of Morals and Markets. Journal of Political Economy, 104, 1297–1313.Google Scholar
Grigoleit, K. J. 2000. Normative Steuerung und kooperative Planung. Die Verwaltung, 33, 79–109.Google Scholar
Güth, W. 1995. On Ultimatum Bargaining Experiments – A Personal Review. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 27, 329–344.Google Scholar
Hahn, S. 2000. Überlegungsgleichgewicht(e) – Prüfung einer Rechtfertigungsmetapher. Alber: Freiburg.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C. 1975. Can the Maximin Principle Serve as a Basis for Morality? A Critique of John Rawls’ Theory. American Political Science Review, 69, 594–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C. 1982. Morality and the Theory of Rational Behavior. In: Sen, A. K. and Williams, B. (eds.) Utilitarianism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hayden, G. M. and Ellis, S. E. 2007. Law and Economics after Behavioral Economics. University of Kansas Law Review, 55, 629–675.Google Scholar
Healey, P., Purdue, M., and Ennis, F. 1995. Negotiating Development: Rationales and Practice for Development Obligations and Planning Gain. London: E & FN Spon.Google Scholar
Heider, L. and Mukerji, N. 2015. Rawls, Order Ethics, and Rawlsian Order Ethics. In: Lütge, C. and Mukerji, N. (eds.) Order Ethics – A Compendium. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Ensminger, J., Mcelreath, R., et al. 2010a. Markets, Religion, Community Size, and the Evolution of Fairness and Punishment. Science, 327, 1480–1484.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., and Norenzayan, A. 2010b. The Weirdest People in the World? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.Google Scholar
Hoffman, E. and Spitzer, M. L. 1986. Experimental Tests of the Coase Theorem with Large Bargaining Groups. Journal of Legal Studies, 15, 149–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolls, C., Sunstein, C. R., and Thaler, R. 1998. A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics. Stanford Law Review, 50, 1471–1450.Google Scholar
Kaplow, L. and Shavell, S. 1996. Property Rules versus Liability Rules: An Economic Analysis. Harvard Law Review, 109, 713–790.Google Scholar
Kaplow, L. and Shavell, S. 2002. Fairness versus Welfare. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, I. and Kim, J. 2004. Efficiency of Posner’s Nuisance Rule: A Reconsideration. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) / Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 160, 327–333.Google Scholar
Medema, S. G. 1999. Symposium on the Coase Theorem: Legal Fiction: The Place of the Coase Theorem in Law and Economics. Economics and Philosophy, 15, 209–233.Google Scholar
Miceli, T. J. 1991. Compensation for the Taking of Land under Eminent Domain. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 147, 354–363.Google Scholar
Miceli, T. J. and Segerson, K. 2000. Takings. In: Bouckaert, B. and Geest, G. D. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Law & Economics. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Michelman, F. I. 1967. Property, Utility, and Fairness: Comments on the Ethical Foundations of “Just Compensation” Law. Harvard Law Review, 80, 1165–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishan, E. J. 1971. The Postwar Literature on Externalities: An Interpretative Essay. Journal of Economic Literature, 9, 1–28.Google Scholar
Mumey, G. A. 1971. The “Coase Theorem”: A Reexamination. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 85, 718–723.Google Scholar
O’Neill, O. 1998. The Method of A Theory of Justice. In: Höffe, O. (ed.) John Rawls. Eine Theorie der Gerechtigkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Ott, C. and Schäfer, H. B. 1994. Entwicklung und Konstruktion effizienter Normen im Rechtssystem des deutschen Zivilrechts. Homo Oeconomicus, 11, 293–329.Google Scholar
Papandreou, A. A. 2003. Externality, Convexity and Institutions. Economics and Philosophy, 19, 281–309.Google Scholar
Papier, H. J. 1994. Art. In: Maunz, T. and Dürig, G. (eds.) Grundgesetz-Kommentar. München: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Posner, R. A. 1979. Utilitarianism, Economics, and Legal Theory. The Journal of Legal Studies, 8, 103–140.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schlicht, E. 1996. Exploiting the Coase Mechanism: The Extortion Problem. Kyklos, 49, 319–330.Google Scholar
Schubert, C. 2006. Die rechtliche Steuerung urbanen Wandels: eine konstitutionenökonomische Untersuchung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Schubert, C. 2012. Is Novelty Always a Good Thing? Towards an Evolutionary Welfare Economics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 22, 585–619.Google Scholar
Swanson, T. and Kontoleon, A. 2000. Nuisance. In: Bouckaert, B. and Geest, G. D. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
von Wangenheim, G. V. 2011. Evolutionary Theories in Law and Economics and Their Use for Comparative Legal Theory. Review of Law & Economics, 7, 737–765.Google Scholar
Witt, U. 1989. The Evolution of Economic Institutions as a Propagation Process. Public Choice, 62, 155–172.Google Scholar
Witt, U. 1996. Innovations, Externalities and the Problem of Economic Progress. Public Choice, 89, 113–130.Google Scholar