Search

Begin New Search Author Edward P. Stringham Publication Year within 25 Years

1. Privatizing the Adjudication of Disputes

Author:
Bryan Caplan and Edward P. Stringham
Publication Date:
10-2007
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Independent Institute
Abstract:
Must the state handle the adjudication of disputes? Researchers of different perspectives, from heterodox scholars of law who advocate legal pluralism to libertarian economists who advocate privatizing law, have increasingly questioned the idea that the state is, or should be, the only source of law. Both groups point out that government law has problems and that non-state alternatives exist. This article discusses some problems with the public judicial system and several for-profit alternatives. Public courts lack both incentives to be customer oriented and pricing mechanisms, plus they face problems associated with the bureaucratic provision of services. When parties can choose their tribunals, in contrast, those tribunals must serve customers and be mindful about conserving resources. Competition between arbitrators also can allow for experimentation and the provision of customized services rather than a centrally planned, one size fits all system. Contracts with an arbitration clause can easily stipulate the choice of tribunal, and we argue that if government courts simply refused to overrule binding arbitration agreements, de facto privatization could easily take place. This article discusses how private adjudication of disputes could enable the market to internalize externalities and provide services that customers desire.
Topic:
Civil Society, Government, Markets, and Privatization

2. The Radical Libertarian Political Economy of 19th Century Preacher David Lipscomb

Author:
Edward P. Stringham
Publication Date:
12-2006
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Independent Institute
Abstract:
David Lipscomb (1831-1917) was an influential Tennessee preacher who edited a weekly paper from 1866-1917 and published a book Civil Government in 1889. Although few, if any, economists appear to be aware of David Lipscomb, Lipscomb's writing includes many points that political economists, especially radical libertarian ones, are making today. This article highlights some of Lipscomb's insights and relates them to arguments made by economists in the past three decades. Lipscomb argued that government is not created for the benefit of the public but for the benefit of the rulers. He believed that all governments, including democratic ones, are problematic. He argued that self-serving politicians actually create conflict and violence and that the public should withdraw support from government. He argued that moral people should not participate in politics, should not vote, and should not fight in wars. Modern libertarian economists make similar arguments that Lipscomb made more than a century in advance.
Topic:
Civil Society, Government, and Politics
Political Geography:
United States

3. Taxing Development: The Law and Economics of Traffic Impact Fees

Author:
Edward P. Stringham, Benjamin Powell, and Jack Estill
Publication Date:
12-2006
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Independent Institute
Abstract:
Should developers be charged fees for negatively impacting residents? New development often uses existing (or requires new) infrastructure including roads, sewers, refuse collection, parks, fire, police, and schools. When developers provide this infrastructure to users for “free,” who should pay? Over the past fifty years governments have increasingly charged new development impact fees for imposing costs on communities. California is one of the leaders in the development of impact fees. The modern Pigovian idea is that government can set a fee at the value of the impact to internalize externalities and encourage the economically efficient amount of development. While developers can often provide the necessary infrastructure within their own developments as part of the construction process, additional impacts from new development may spill over into existing communities that necessitate additional capital improvements. Local government can hypothetically charge the development a fee that is equal to this impact, thereby internalizing this externality. If the exact value of the external impact is known and implemented as a fee, this process can encourage the economically efficient amount of development. Despite the increasing popularity of development impact fees, several issues make the government's “economically efficient” solution easier said than done.
Topic:
Civil Society, Development, Economics, and Education
Political Geography:
California