subject: law and economics Consider the model of land assembly (under the topic
ID: 1201075 • Letter: S
Question
subject: law and economics
Consider the model of land assembly (under the topic Eminent Domain). Specifically, assume that a buyer want to buy two contiguous properties owned by two different owners. You can assume that the properties are identical in all respects. There two possible scenarios for the bargaining between the buyer and the owners.
Scenario 1: The buyer negotiates with owners in sequence, i.e., with one owner at a time. If negotiation with the first owner is successful, the buyer negotiates with the second owner. Suppose, at each stage of negotiation, the owner can extract fraction of the net total surplus/gains from the transaction at hand. There is no other hurdle to negotiations.
Scenario 2: The buyer negotiates with both the owners simultaneously. Sup- pose, the buyer refuses to deal with the owners individually and the owners believe such an assertion by the buyer. So, the only possible way to strike a deal is for the three of them to negotiate together. If negotiations are successful, the buyer will get two properties and the owners will get an acceptable price. Further, each party will get 1/3 fraction of the net total surplus/gains from the transaction. There is no other hurdle to negotiations.
(a) Compare the above scenarios in terms of the efficiency of the outcomes achieved. Use the Kaldor-Hick efficiency criterion.
(b) Compare the individual payoffs for the owners and the buyer, under the two bargaining scenarios. Which one is better for the Buyer?
(c) Under the assumptions stated above, can there be any hold up/out problem under the second scenario?
(d) For scenario 2, suppose the buyers assertion to engage only in the collective bargaining is not credible. Specifically, assume that one of the owners thinks that if she does not join the collective bargaining, the buyer will approach the owners in sequence as under Scenario 1. What would be the outcome now?
Prove your claims. You may want to analyze, by presenting each scenario as a game between the buyer and the owners.
Explanation / Answer
Scenario 1:
The buyer gets to buy the land outright and owner goes for a bargain and gets some fraction of the net total surplus/gains, This is an outright transaction and no future clauses or aggrements are involved in scenario 2 there are aggrements about profit sharing which is 1/3 of the total profit.
It is better for both the parties to go ahead with scenario 1, The buyer is buying property for profit seller has similar intentions so it is better to settle the issue in just one go.
Yes profit cannot be guarenteed in any business, So there can be dangerous situation where buyer spends most of his money on business expense and sellers looses it all.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.