Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2002373
 
 

References (19)



 
 

Citations (1)



 


 



The False Promise of the Right to Exclude


Adam Mossoff


George Mason University School of Law

February 9, 2012

Econ Journal Watch, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 255-264, 2011
George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 12-12

Abstract:     
This essay, written for the Econ Journal Watch symposium, “Property: A Bundle of Rights?,” addresses a dispute among the critics of the “bundle” conception of property: does defining the core essence of property as the right to exclude avoid the disintegrating effects of the bundle conception? Thomas Merrill and Henry Smith believe so, and they have developed an extensive literature modeling how their “exclusion conception of property” achieves determinacy and information-cost efficiencies in property law. This essay contends that this is a false promise. Merrill and Smith are correct that the bundle conception is wrong, but their model of how the right to exclude functions in practice -- what they call the “exclusion strategy” -- does not account for the majority of property doctrines raised in real-world lawsuits. Despite the emphasis on trespass and conversion doctrines within academic scholarship, most property disputes are not situations in which a property-owner seeks to exclude a stranger from one’s land or chattel; rather, most property disputes arise from sustained and substantial ex ante relationships between individuals concerning the use, possession or disposition of a valued asset or resource. Merrill and Smith claim that these "governance strategies" function only at the "periphery" of property law, but in practice this is simply not true, including even in trespass cases, which supposedly represent the exclusion strategy par excellence. This essay briefly explores this insight by detailing how the exclusion conception of property fails to account fully for this heterogeneity in real-world property disputes, Although the elegant reductionism of the exclusion conception of property makes it theoretically appealing, lawyers and economists should be wary of its promise of determinacy in saving property from the disintegrative effects of the bundle conception.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 11

Keywords: Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, State v. Shack, Hendricks, in rem, in personam, rights, governance strategy, Progressives, Dukeminier, Harold Demsetz, Richard Posner, Ronald Coase

JEL Classification: D23, K11, O34

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: February 10, 2012  

Suggested Citation

Mossoff, Adam, The False Promise of the Right to Exclude (February 9, 2012). Econ Journal Watch, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 255-264, 2011; George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 12-12. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2002373

Contact Information

Adam Mossoff (Contact Author)
George Mason University School of Law ( email )
3301 Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22201
United States
703-993-9577 (Phone)

George Mason Law School Logo

Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 762
Downloads: 165
Download Rank: 104,129
References:  19
Citations:  1

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.281 seconds