Skip Navigation



Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization Advance Access published online on May 4, 2008

Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, doi:10.1093/jleo/ewn006
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Libecap, G. D.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Yale University. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Chinatown Revisited: Owens Valley and Los Angeles—Bargaining Costs and Fairness Perceptions of the First Major Water Rights Exchange

Gary D. Libecap*

University of California, Santa Barbara

*Professor, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management and Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA. Email: glibecap{at}bren.ucsb.edu. Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research, and Fellow, Hoover Institute.

I examine a complicated bargaining problem in the acquisition of private land and water rights by Los Angeles in Owens Valley. This is a pivotal episode in the political economy of contemporary western water. More broadly, Owens Valley provides empirical evidence on how the gains from exchange were divided among the parties and how equity concerns shaped the process and succeeding assessment of market allocation. Negotiations for key properties took place within a bilateral monopoly context, and the bargaining strategies of both parties raised the transaction costs of exchange and formed fairness perceptions about the outcome of the exchange. I analyze the bargaining environment and estimate the determinants of when properties sold and the prices paid for land and water. Farmers who colluded did better by selling the properties than if they had remained in agriculture. Their "cartels," however, were not strong enough to secure more of the surplus from reallocating water from agriculture to urban demand. Most of the gains went to Los Angeles landowners, and this is a source of the notion of water "theft" that continues today.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.