4.6 Article

Initially contestable property rights and Coase: Evidence from the lab

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2023.102842

关键词

Coasean bargaining; Transaction costs; Experiment; Property rights; Contest; Natural resources

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article investigates how initially contestable property rights affect the efficiency of the Coase theorem. Through a two-stage experiment, the study finds that the presence of costly rent seeking for property rights significantly reduces the likelihood of reaching an efficient outcome. It further reveals that asymmetric bargaining costs, which differ depending on whether the player wins or loses the initial property rights, considerably decrease the likelihood of achieving an efficient outcome. The analysis is applicable to contexts involving initially contestable and tradable natural resource rights.
This article investigates how the existence of initially contestable property rights affects the efficiency of the Coase theorem. We design a two-stage experiment that incorporates a stage where property rights are initially allocated to participants followed by a stage that allows bargaining between participants. In stage one, participants endogenously choose rent -seeking effort (and thus the probability) to initially obtain property rights before entering an unstructured bargaining game. We find the presence of costly rent seeking to obtain the property rights makes it significantly less likely that the efficient outcome is reached. We introduce bargaining costs and find that allowing for symmetric bargaining costs has no impact on the likelihood of the efficient outcome being reached, whereas asymmetric bargaining costs - costs that differ if the player wins or loses the initial property rights - substantially reduces the likelihood of reaching an efficient outcome. Our analysis is applicable to contexts with initially contestable and tradable nature resource rights.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据