Skip Navigation



Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization Advance Access published online on April 16, 2008
Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, doi:10.1093/jleo/ewn007
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
25/2/286    most recent
ewn007v1
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 Innes, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
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

Coming to the Nuisance: Revisiting Spur in a Model of Location Choice

Robert Innes*

University of Arizona

* Departments of Economics and Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA. Email: innes{at}ag.arizona.edu.

Building on recent work of Pitchford and Snyder (PS, 2003), this article models effects of alternative property rights regimes on sequential location decisions of two players. A new resident decides whether to "come to the nuisance" by locating next to an existing business or to locate elsewhere where there are no negative externalities between occupants. Faced with a new resident, the existing business can relocate. Once situated, local residents bargain to address negative externalities. However, location decisions are non-contractible. In this setting—contrary to PS—the first best is achieved by allocating property rights to the first party, entitling the initial resident to full compensation for damages. This rule is consistent with the Spur Industries decision. Allocating property rights to second parties excessively encourages residents to "come to the nuisance," whereas stronger first-party rights (injunctive or exclusion) excessively deter nuisances from moving to areas less prone to external harm. (JEL K11, K32, D62, D23)


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.