Monday, September 22, 2008

Book Review: Gridlock Economy

Michael Heller coined the term “anticommons” to describe the inefficient over-allocation of property rights in post-Soviet Russia. In Gridlock Economy, he expounds in a popular setting (albeit thoroughly-referenced) on the ideas he has developed in the legal literature and elsewhere.

The seminal example of thriving sidewalk kiosks adjacent to the well-lit but empty Moscow storefronts receives an entire chapter. The reader is encouraged not to blame the thoroughly-credentialed World Bank advisors who helped create the legal labyrinth that was to blame for the underuse of the valuable storefronts (Heller for the World Bank advisors, and he, obviously, didn’t screw anything up—ignore the fact that the Russians lacked any people with a memory of capitalism, even of a Tsarist flavor, and had to rely on their Western advisors for advice in quickly establishing functional market structures under political constraints). The takeaway from that and most of the other stories is that anticommons problems are much more likely when the government tries to create new property rights from scratch, and doesn’t quite get it right. Beware PES. Sorry, experts.

The more interesting examples pertain to the cutting edge of the economy: the ultraviolet spectrum and the patenting of biomedical technologies. In the first case, the inefficient overallocation of the spectrum in the U.S. is implicated in the sub-standard quality of wireless broadband telecommunications. The second case is the crux of a debate over proprietary versus open-source research output, especially when prior work is requisite (as in the case of particular gene sequences) for further advances. Is the cure for cancer going undiscovered because researchers fear patent trolls?

The least satisfying chapter is the final one, in which Heller explores the economic history of oysters. While the common-property dimensions of the problem are apparent, and vividly illustrated in the rent dissipation of oyster wars, what is not clear is how we should think about oysters as an anticommons problem. Is it just that the Chesapeake is divided between Virginia and Maryland? Or that it took nearly two hundred years to negotiate a settlement? Prudhoe Bay took a long time to unitize, but not because of commons and bilateral monopoly problems as opposed to anticommons issues. Early in the book Heller acknowledges Buchanan and Yoon’s model of the anticommons as the theoretical analogue of the commons. However, the evidence that he presents in anecdotes throughout the book isn’t always clear about which problem has the upper hand. The spectrum and biomedical patent examples are transparent, as the spatial and legal anticommons in land. But in other cases, like oysters, it’s not so clear.

Heller’s core suggestions are well-taken. We should think about the costs of overdefining property rights in counterproductive ways. We should expand the English vocabulary in ways that word processors inject fewer squiggles under descriptors like underuse, anticommons, and overdefine. But the challenge of theoretically and empirically refining the anticommons concept remains. That said, numerous interesting research lines present themselves.

3 comments:

Higgins said...

Connection to PES is tenuous. There are not necessarily competing claims to property rights in the case of PES. In fact, there usually cannot be, since govt is the only buyer of PES contracts (no private trading for the purposes of production -- govt is always the ultimate lessee) and thus there is no holdup problem (as with patents). Negotiation between counterparties is not a problem in most instances that I can think of. Moreover, property rights are defined only for periods of time in PES contracts, meaning that a re-definition is possible.

In sum, I don't think the analog is that strong, though I'm sure there are cases that I'm not thinking of. By and large, I see no reason to hold up PES contracting for fear clogging the works.

tfitzgerald said...

There is an emergent market for private PES. Current debate in ND legislature suggests anticommons issues may arise. Redefinition of rights is the exact sort behavior that deters investment. Nonlinear, chaotic, and uncertain ecological relationships are also another potential problem.

Higgins said...

This is very interesting. I propose a post with more details on the ND proposal. TF: can you lead? If not, I'll do a bit of research and take the lead.

Response to your comment about re-definition of property rights:
When there is no non-governmental buyer for PES services, there is no problem with a shift in goals unless potential providers decide to hold out, perceiving some real option, for future programs that they would better qualify for. This has not been a problem in the past and I see no reason why such a thing should haunt progress. We're not talking about a situation where private landholders are likely to be harmed by a property rights re-definition. What we're talking about is the government acting to increase the provision of some service, the property right of the owner being secure. The private rights-holder only needs to decide if they want to give up some of that right, the right to develop in a particular way, for example, for a contract payment. Where is the danger in that sort of agreement? You must be thinking of a specific example. If so, you should share it with the group.