The Demarcation of Land and the Role of Coordinating Institutions

66 Pages Posted: 23 Jul 2009

See all articles by Gary D. Libecap

Gary D. Libecap

University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) - Donald Bren School of Environmental Science & Management; University of Arizona - Karl Eller Center; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); PERC - Property and Environment Research Center

Dean Lueck

Indiana University Bloomington - The Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory & Policy Analysis; Indiana University

Multiple version iconThere are 2 versions of this paper

Date Written: July 21, 2009

Abstract

This paper examines the economic effects of the two dominant land demarcation systems: metes and bounds (MB) and the rectangular system (RS). Under MB property is demarcated by its perimeter as indicated by natural features and human structures and linked to surveys within local political jurisdictions. Under RS land demarcation is governed by a common grid with uniform square shapes, sizes, alignment, and geographically-based addresses. In the U.S. MB is used principally in the original 13 states, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The RS is found elsewhere under the Land Ordinance of 1785 that divided federal lands into square-mile sections. We develop an economic framework for examining land demarcation systems and draw predictions. Our empirical analysis focuses on a 39-county area of Ohio where both MB and RS were used in adjacent areas as a result of exogenous historical factors. The results indicate that topography influences parcel shape and size under a MB system; that parcel shapes are aligned under the RS; and that the RS is associated with higher land values, more roads, more land transactions, and fewer legal disputes than MB, all else equal. The comparative limitations of MB appear to have had negative long-term effects on land values and economic activity in the sample area.

JEL Classification: D23, K11, N5, O17, Q15

Suggested Citation

Libecap, Gary D. and Lueck, Dean, The Demarcation of Land and the Role of Coordinating Institutions (July 21, 2009). ICER Working Paper No. 14/2009 , CELS 2009 4th Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies Paper, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1436986 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1436986

Gary D. Libecap (Contact Author)

University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) - Donald Bren School of Environmental Science & Management ( email )

4670 Physical Sciences North
Santa Barbara, CA 93106-5131
United States
805-893-8611 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://www.esm.ucsb.edu/people/usernew.asp?user=glibecap

University of Arizona - Karl Eller Center ( email )

McClelland Hall
Tucson, AZ 85721-0108
United States
520-621-4821 (Phone)
520-626-5269 (Fax)

HOME PAGE: http://www.bpa.arizona.edu/~libecap

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

1050 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States

PERC - Property and Environment Research Center

2048 Analysis Drive
Suite A
Bozeman, MT 59718
United States

Dean Lueck

Indiana University Bloomington - The Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory & Policy Analysis ( email )

513 N. Park Avenue
Bloomington, IN 47408–3895
United States

HOME PAGE: http://https://ostromworkshop.indiana.edu/people/directors/lueck-dean.html

Indiana University ( email )

107 S Indiana Ave
100 South Woodlawn
Bloomington, IN 47405
United States

HOME PAGE: http://https://economics.indiana.edu/home/people/lueck/

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
114
Abstract Views
1,114
Rank
291,987
PlumX Metrics