Privatizing the Commons: An Improvement?

  • Terry L. Anderson
  • Peter J. Hill
Part of the Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy book series (TREP, volume 1)


Recent years have seen political economists turning to an institutional paradigm wherein the extent to which property rights are defined and enforced is an important determinant of human action. (Furubotn, 1972) The institutional or property rights approach has become an important component of explanations of both economic growth and economic inefficiency. The institutional environment now holds a prominent place in explanations of differential growth rates among political units and over time.1 The property rights approach has also become commonplace in the analysis of the environmental crisis where the lack of well-defined property rights is seen as the cause of environmental problems and movement toward a more complete specification of those rights as the solution. Even bureaucratic inefficiencies have been analyzed in the context of property rights. (McKean, 1965).


Federal Communication Commission Public Land Common Pool Enforcement Activity Minimum Price 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alchian, A.A., and Demsetz, H. “Production, Information Costs, and EconomicGoogle Scholar
  2. Organization.“ American Economic Review (December, 1972): 777–95. Anderson, T.L. and Hill, P.J. ”The Evolution of Property Rights: A Study of theGoogle Scholar
  3. American West.“ The Journal of Law and Economics (April, 1975): 163–79. Baden, J., and Fort, R.D. ”Natural Resources and Bureaucratic Predators.“Google Scholar
  4. Policy Review (Winter, 1980): 69–81.Google Scholar
  5. Bogue, A.G. “The Iowa Claim Clubs Symbol and Substance.” In: V. Carstensen (ed.), The Public Lands. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1963.Google Scholar
  6. Buchanan, J. M. The Limits of Liberry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  7. Buchanan, J. M. “Rent Seeking Under External Diseconomies. ”In J.M. Buchanan, R.Google Scholar
  8. Tollison, and G. Tullock (eds.), Towards a Theory of a Rent-seeking Society. College Station: Texas A and M Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  9. Coase, R. H., “The Federal Communications Commissions.” The Journal of Law and Economics (October, 1959 ): 1–40.Google Scholar
  10. Cheung, S. N. S. “The Structure of a Contract and the Theory of a Non-Exclusive Resource.” The Journal of Law and Economics (April, 1970 ): 49–70.Google Scholar
  11. Dam, K. “Oil and Gas Licensing in the North Sea.” Journal of Law and Economics (October, 1965 ): 51–75.Google Scholar
  12. Dennen, R.T. “Cattlemen’s Associations and Property Rights in the American West.” Explorations in Economic History (October, 1976) 423–36.Google Scholar
  13. Dennen, R.T., “Some Efficiency Effects of Nineteenth-Century Federal Land Policy: A Dynamic Analysis.” Agricultural History (October, 1977) 718–36.Google Scholar
  14. Furubotn, E., and Pejovich, S.: “Property Rights and Economic Theory: A Survey of Recent Literature.” Journal of Economic Literature (December, 1972 ): 1137–62.Google Scholar
  15. Haveman, R. H. “Efficiency and Equity in Natural Resource and Environmental Policy.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics (December, 1973 ): 868–78.Google Scholar
  16. Higgs, R. The Transformation of the American Economy, 1865–1914. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971.Google Scholar
  17. Libecap, G. D. Locking Up The Range. San Francisco: Pacific Institute for Policy Studies, 1981.Google Scholar
  18. and Johnson, R.N. “Property Rights, Nineteenth-Century Federal TimberGoogle Scholar
  19. Policy, and the Conservation Movement.“ The Journal of Economic History (March, 1979): 129–42.Google Scholar
  20. McKean, R.N. “The Unseen Hand in Government.” American Economic Review, June (1965): 496–505.Google Scholar
  21. North, D.C. “A Framework for Analyzing the State in Economic History.” Explorations in Economic History (July, 1979): 249–59.Google Scholar
  22. and Thomas, R. P. The Rise of the Western World. London: CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  24. Osgood, E. S. The Day of the Cattleman. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1929.Google Scholar
  25. Pelzer, L. The Cattlemen’s Frontier. Glendale, Calif.: Arthur H. Clark Co., 1936. Posner, R.A. “The Social Costs of Monopoly and Regulation.” Journal of Political Economy (August, 1975 ): 807–27.Google Scholar
  26. Shambaugh, B.F. “Frontier Land Clubs, or Claim Associations.” Annual Report of the American Historical Association, Vol. 1 (1900): 67–84.Google Scholar
  27. Southey, C. “The Staple Thesis, Common Property, and Homesteading.” Canadian Journal of Economics (August, 1978 ): 547–559.Google Scholar
  28. Stuart, G. Forty Years on the Frontier, 2 Vols. P.C. Philips (ed.) Cleveland: The Arthu H. Clark Company, 1925.Google Scholar
  29. Umbeck, “The California Gold Rush: A Study of Emerging Property Rights.” Explorations in Economic History (July, 1977): 197–226.Google Scholar
  30. United States House Report No. 95–590, 1977.Google Scholar
  31. United States Senate Report No. 95–284, 1977.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terry L. Anderson
  • Peter J. Hill

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations