Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:20:02.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Mystery of Property Rights: A U.S. Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2011

Naomi R. Lamoreaux
Naomi R. Lamoreaux*
Affiliation:
Professor of Economics and History, Yale University, 27 Hillhouse Avenue, New Haven, CT 06520-8269; and Research Associate, NBER. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Economic development requires both secure property rights and the ability to reallocate property in response to technological and other changes. Significant reallocations have occurred repeatedly throughout U.S. history and have often been involuntary. This essay considers the question of how property rights can be subject to frequent involuntary reallocation and still be considered secure.

“Upon the sacredness of property civilization itself depends—the right of the laborer to his hundred dollars in the savings bank, and equally the legal right of the millionaire to his millions.”1

Andrew Carnegie

Type
ARTICLES
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 71 , Issue 2 , 06 June 2011 , pp. 275 - 306
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aron, Stephen. “Pioneers and Profiteers: Land Speculation and the Homestead Ethic in Frontier Kentucky.” Western Historical Quarterly 23, no. 2 (1992): 179–98.Google Scholar
Atack, Jeremy, and Passell, Peter. A New Economic View of American History. 2nd edition. New York: W. W. Norton, 1994.Google Scholar
Baltimore Sun, 31 May 1984.Google Scholar
Banner, Stuart. Who Owns the Sky? The Struggle to Control Airspace from the Wright Brothers On. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barzel, Yoram. Economic Analysis of Property Rights. 2nd edition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Bell, Abraham, and Parchomovsky, Gideon. “The Uselessness of Public Use.” Columbia Law Review 106, no. 6 (2006): 1412–49.Google Scholar
Benedict, Jeff. Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage. New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2009.Google Scholar
Bogart, Dan, and Richardson, Gary. “Making Property Productive: Reorganizing Rights to Real and Equitable Estates in Britain, 1660–1830.” European Review of Economic History 13. no. 1 (2009): 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogue, Allan G. “The Iowa Claim Clubs: Symbol and Substance.” In The Public Lands: Studies in the History of the Public Domain, edited byCarstensen, Vernon, 47–69. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1963.Google Scholar
Boone, Catherine. “Property and Constitutional Order: Land Tenure Reform and the Future of the African State.” African Affairs 106, no. 425 (2007): 557–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Julian P., et al. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. 36 Vols. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950–2009.Google Scholar
Brooks, Richard O., et al. The Supreme Court and Takings: Four Essays. South Royalton: Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, 2005.Google Scholar
Caro, Robert A.The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York. New York: Vintage, 1975.Google Scholar
Cincone, Gia L.“Land Reform and Corporate Redistribution: The Republican Legacy.” Stanford Law Review 39, no. 5 (1987): 1229–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
A Citizen (David Henshaw). An Appeal to the Good Sense of the Legislature and the Community in Favor of a New Bridge to South Boston. Boston: True and Greene, 1825.Google Scholar
Clay, Karen B.“Property Rights and Institutions: Congress and the California Land Act of 1851.” The Journal of Economic History 59, no. 1 (1999): 122–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushman, Robert Eugene.Excess Condemnation. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1917.Google Scholar
De Alessi, Louis. “The Economics of Property Rights: A Review of the Evidence.” Research in Law and Economics 2 (1980): 1–47.Google Scholar
Demsetz, Harold. “Toward a Theory of Property Rights.” American Economic Review 57, no. 2 (1967): 347–59.Google Scholar
Demsetz, Harold. “Frischmann's View of 'Toward a Theory of Property Rights'.” Review of Law and Economics 4, no. 1 (2008): Article 7, available at http://www.bepress.com/rle/vol4/iss1/art7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Soto, Hernando. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. New York: Basic Books, 2000.Google Scholar
Einhorn, Robin L.“Species of Property: The American Property-Tax Uniformity Clauses Reconsidered.” The Journal of Economic History 61, no. 4 (2001): 974–1008.Google Scholar
Ellickson, Robert C.“Alternatives to Zoning: Covenants, Nuisance Rules, and Fines as Land Use Controls.” University of Chicago Law Review 40, no. 4 (1973): 681–781.Google Scholar
Engerman, Stanley L., and Sokoloff, Kenneth L.. “Factor Endowments, Inequality, and Paths of Development Among New World Economies.” Economía 3, no. 1 (2002): 41–109.Google Scholar
Engerman, Stanley L.Economic Development in the Americas Since 1500: Endowments and Institutions. New York: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Engerman, Stanley L. “Once Upon a Time in the Americas: Land and Immigration Policies in the New World.” In Understanding Long-Run Economic Growth: Geography, Institutions, and the Knowledge Economy, edited byCosta, Dora L. and Lamoreaux, Naomi R.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Epstein, Richard A.Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Richard A.“Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council: A Tangled Web of Expectations.” Stanford Law Review 45, no. 5 (1993): 1369–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleck, Robert K., and Hanssen, F. Andrew. “Repeated Adjustment of Delegated Powers and the History of Eminent Domain.” International Review of Law and Economics 30, no. 2 (2010): 90–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnett, Nicole Stelle.“The Neglected Political Economy of Eminent Domain.” Michigan Law Review 105, no. 1 (2006): 101–50.Google Scholar
Gates, Paul W.“Tenants of the Log Cabin.” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 9, no. 1 (1962): 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gates, Paul W.History of Public Land Law Development. Washington, DC: GPO, 1968.Google Scholar
Harper's Magazine, October 2005.Google Scholar
Hart, John F.“The Maryland Mill Act, 1669–1766: Economic Policy and the Confiscatory Redistribution of Private Property.” American Journal of Legal History 39, no. 1 (1995): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, John F.“Property Rights, Costs, and Welfare: Delaware Water Mill Legislation, 1719–1859.” Journal of Legal Studies 27, no. 2 (1998): 455–71.Google Scholar
Hartford Courant, various issues.Google Scholar
Horwitz, Morton J.The Transformation of American Law, 1780–1860. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Institute for Justice, “Susette Kelo's Little Pink House Finds a New Foundation.” http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2065&Itemid=245, accessed on 15 Jan. 2011.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Harvey M., and Bassett, Ellen M.. “All Sound, No Fury? Assessing the Impacts of State-Based Kelo Laws on Planning Practice.” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper No. WP10HJ1, Cambridge, MA, March 2010.Google Scholar
Jeon, Yoong-Deok, and Kim, Young-Yong. “Land Reform, Income Redistribution, and Agricultural Production in Korea.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 48, no. 2 (2000): 253–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanazawa, Mark. “Efficiency in Western Water Law: The Development of the California Doctrine, 1850–1911.” Journal of Legal Studies 27, no. 1 (1998): 159–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanazawa, Mark. “Origins of Common-Law Restrictions on Water Transfers: Groundwater Law in Nineteenth-Century California.” Journal of Legal Studies 32, no. 1 (2003): 153–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kens, Paul. Lochner v. New York: Economic Regulation on Trial. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1998.Google Scholar
Koo, Anthony Y. C.“Economic Consequences of Land Reform in Taiwan.” Asian Survey 6, no. 3 (1966): 150–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.Google Scholar
Kutler, Stanley I.Privilege and Creative Destruction: The Charles River Bridge Case. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, 1971.Google Scholar
La Croix, Sumner J., Mak, James, and Rose, Louis A.. “The Political Economy of Urban Land Reform in Hawaii.” Urban Studies 32, no. 6 (1995): 999–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Croix, Sumner J., and Rose, Louis A.. “Public Use, Just Compensation, and Land Reform in Hawaii.” Research in Law and Economics 17 (1995): 47–82.Google Scholar
Leshy, John D.“A Conversation About Takings and Water Rights.” Texas Law Review 83, no. 7 (2005): 1985–2026.Google Scholar
Levmore, Saul. “Two Stories About the Evolution of Property Rights.” Journal of Legal Studies 31, no. 2, pt. 2 (2002): S421–51.Google Scholar
Libecap, Gary D.Contracting for Property Rights. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Libecap, Gary D.Owens Valley Revisited: A Reassessment of the West's First Great Water Transfer. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Libecap, Gary D., and Lueck, Dean. “The Demarcation of Land and the Role of Coordinating Institutions.” NBER Working Paper No. 14942, Cambridge, MA, May 2009.Google Scholar
Lopez, Alberto B.“Revisiting Kelo and Eminent Domain's 'Summer of Scrutiny.'” Alabama Law Review 59, no. 3 (2008): 561–610.Google Scholar
Los Angeles Times, 31 May 1984.Google Scholar
McCormick, Charles T.“The Measure of Compensation in Eminent Domain,” Minnesota Law Review 17, no. 5 (1933): 461–98.Google Scholar
McCurdy, Charles W.The Anti-Rent Era in New York Law and Politics, 1839–1865. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Miller, Gordon R.“Shaping California Water Law, 1781 to 1928.” Southern California Quarterly 55, no. 1 (1973): 9–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, M. Catherine.“Riparian Rights and the Control of Water in California, 1879–1928: The Relationship Between an Agricultural Enterprise and Legal Change.” Agricultural History 59, no. 1 (1985): 1–24.Google Scholar
Mittal, Sonia, and Weingast, Barry. “Self-Enforcing Constitutions: With an Application to Democratic Stability in America's First Century.” Stanford University Working Paper, Stanford, CA, July 2010.Google Scholar
Munch, Patricia. “An Economic Analysis of Eminent Domain.” Journal of Political Economy 84, no. 3 (1976): 473–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nationmaster.com, available at http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_hom_own-people-home-ownership, accessed 24 Jan. 2011.Google Scholar
New York. Report of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1821, Assembled for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution of the State of New York. Albany, NY: E. & E. Hosford, 1821.Google Scholar
New York Times, various dates.Google Scholar
Nichols, Philip Jr. “The Meaning of Public Use in the Law of Eminent Domain.” Boston University Law Review 20, no. 4 (1940): 615–41.Google Scholar
North American Review, June 1889.Google Scholar
North, Douglass C., and Weingast, Barry R.. “Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England.” The Journal of Economic History 49, no. 4 (1989): 803–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Note. “Eminent Domain. Excess Condemnation. Condemnation for Purpose of Raising Funds.” Yale Law Journal 39, no. 1 (1929): 128–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Note. “The Public Use Limitation on Eminent Domain: An Advance Requiem.” Yale Law Journal 58, no. 4 (1949): 599–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pisani, Donald J.“Enterprise and Equity: A Critique of Western Water Law in the Nineteenth Century.” Western Historical Quarterly 18, no. 1 (1987): 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pisani, Donald J.“Squatter Law in California, 1850–1858.” Western Historical Quarterly 25, no. 3 (1994): 277–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, Claire. “Creating an American Property Law: Alienability and Its Limits in American History.” Harvard Law Review 120, no. 2 (2006): 385–459.Google Scholar
Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government. 1840 edn.; n.p.: Forgotten Books, 2008, available at http://books.google.com/books?id=KZcysiWmMoQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=proudhon+what+is+property&hl=en&ei=_uZnTO_DBsXflgeJ1dmeBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false.Google Scholar
Review of the Case of the Free Bridge, Between Boston and Charlestown. Boston: Dutton & Wentworth, 1827.Google Scholar
Robbins, Roy M.“Preemption—A Frontier Triumph.” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 18, no. 3 (1931): 331–49.Google Scholar
Robbins, Roy M.Our Landed Heritage: The Public Domain, 1776–1936. New York: Peter Smith, 1950.Google Scholar
Rose, Carol M.“Energy and Efficiency in the Realignment of Common-Law Water Rights.” Journal of Legal Studies 19, no. 2 (1990): 261–96.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Jean-Laurent. “The Development of Irrigation in Provence, 1700–1860: The French Revolution and Economic Growth.” The Journal of Economic History 50, no. 3 (1990): 615–38.Google Scholar
Sax, Joseph L.“Some Thoughts on the Decline of Private Property.” Washington Law Review 58, no. 3 (1983): 481–96.Google Scholar
Sax, Joseph L.“Property Rights and the Economy of Nature: Understanding Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council.” Stanford Law Review 45, no. 5 (1993): 1433–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sax, Joseph L.“Kelo: A Case Rightly Decided.” University of Hawai'i Law Review 28, no. 2 (2006): 365–72.Google Scholar
Scheiber, Harry N.“Property Law, Expropriation, and Resource Allocation by Government: The United States, 1789–1910.” The Journal of Economic History 33, no. 1 (1973): 232–51.Google Scholar
Scheiber, Harry N., and McCurdy, Charles W.. “Eminent Domain Law and Western Agriculture, 1849–1900.” Agricultural History 49, no. 1 (1975): 112–30.Google Scholar
Shaw, Lemuel. Reasons, Principally of a Public Nature, Against a New Bridge from Charlestown to Boston. Boston: Wells and Lilly, 1825.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of California, 1886.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Michigan, 1981.Google Scholar
Tatter, Henry. “The Preferential Treatment of the Actual Settler in the Primary Disposition of the Vacant Lands in the United States to 1841.” Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, 1933.Google Scholar
Taylor, George Rogers.The Transportation Revolution, 1815–1860. New York: Rinehart, 1951.Google Scholar
The NBER/Maryland State Constitutions Project, available at http://www.stateconstitutions.umd.edu/index.aspx.Google Scholar
Toll, Seymour I.Zoned American. New York: Grossman, 1969.Google Scholar
United States Supreme Court, various years.Google Scholar
Utt, Ronald. “States Vote to Strengthen Property Rights.” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2002 (1 Feb. 2007), available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/02/States-Vote-to-Strengthen-Property-Rights, accessed 6 Sept. 2010.Google Scholar
Van Atta, John R.“‘A Lawless Rabble’: Henry Clay and the Cultural Politics of Squatters' Rights, 1832–1841.” Journal of the Early Republic 28, no. 3 (2008): 337–78.Google Scholar
van Ewijk, Casper, and van Leuvensteijn, Michiel, eds. Homeownership and the Labour Market in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Wallace, Anthony F. C.The Long Bitter Trail: Andrew Jackson and the Indians. New York: Hill and Wang, 1993.Google Scholar
Wallis, John Joseph.“Constitutions, Corporations, and Corruption: American States and Constitutional Change, 1842 to 1852.” The Journal of Economic History 65, no. 1 (2005): 211–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall Street Journal, 1 June 1984.Google Scholar
Washington Post, 31 May 1984.Google Scholar
Williamson, Mark B.“Land Reform in Japan.” Journal of Farm Economics 33, no. 2 (1951): 169–76.Google Scholar
Wolf, Michael Allan.The Zoning of America. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2008.Google Scholar
Zuck, John M.“Kelo v. City of New London: Despite the Outcry, the Decision is Firmly Supported by Precedent—However, Eminent Domain Critics Still Have Gained Ground.” University of Memphis Law Review 38, no. 1 (2007): 187–230.Google Scholar