Popular in Economics

Central Monetary Authorities

Macroeconomic modelling of CBDC: a critical review

European Central Bank Ulrich Bindseil

Central Monetary Authorities

Financing Private Credit

Federal Reserve Bank of New York Nina Boyarchenko

Economics

Failing Banks

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Emil Verner

Economic History

Golden Fetters

UC Berkeley Barry Eichengreen

Economic Inequalities

Visions of Inequality

City University of New York Branko Milanovic

Economics

School Finance Equalization Increases Intergenerational Mobility

Yale University Barbara Biasi

Economics

Olivier Blanchard on U.S. Pandemic-Era Inflation

Peterson Institute for International Economics Olivier Blanchard

Fence Laws, Liability Rules, and Agricultural Productivity

View more insights in Social Sciences - Economics - Economic History

View more figures from Brandeis University

View the page of Jingyi Huang

Read the Study

Next in Economic History

The Price of Housing in the United States, 1890-2006

Rowena Gray | University of California, Merced

Morts Pour la France: A database of French fatalities of the Great War

Pauline Grosjean | UNSW Sydney

Jingyi Huang studies how the default private property protection liability can lead to persistent resource misallocations.

Image courtesy of interviewee. June 14, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

This video is a transcript of an interview discussing the concept of "fence laws" and their implications in the American West, particularly how they relate to property rights, agricultural land use, and economic outcomes.

1. **Context and Importance of Fence Laws**: Fence laws dictate who is liable for building fences between neighboring properties, particularly between farmers and ranchers. These laws evolved over time as regulators sought to accommodate the growing settlement in the West and the rising costs of fencing.

2. **Historical Evolution**: Initially, farmers were required to build fences to keep livestock out, but as fencing costs increased, liability shifted towards ranchers. This video created a mix of regulations across adjacent counties, leading to different outcomes based on the imposed liabilities.

3. **Theoretical Framework**: The discussion references Ronald Coase's theorem, which suggests that resource allocation should be efficient regardless of liability assignment. However, in reality, transaction costs and regulatory frameworks can lead to inefficiencies.

4. **Empirical Analysis**: The researcher collected data on the history of fence laws and agricultural outputs from several states. By focusing on adjacent counties with differing regulations, she aimed to isolate the effects of these laws on land use and settlement patterns.

5. **Findings**:
- Shifting liabilities from farmers to ranchers encouraged more agricultural land use and improved investment in land.
- Total agricultural output increased, although average output per acre remained constant, indicating no productivity gains.
- Changes in liabilities negatively affected land claims by potential buyers but did not impact homesteaders.

6. **Conclusions and Implications**: The findings emphasize the significance of regulatory nuances in property rights, suggesting that even well-defined rights can lead to market inefficiencies. It calls for further research into subtle property right rules and their impacts, relevant both historically and in present-day scenarios.

The setting and discourse indicate a detailed academic inquiry into property rights and agricultural economics, emphasizing the ongoing relevance of these issues.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.145 --> 00:03.245
The context is fence laws in the America West.

00:03.555 --> 00:05.925
This is a very esoteric regulation.

00:06.675 --> 00:09.805
What it does is assign the default

00:10.445 --> 00:13.445
property protection liabilities to one side

00:13.445 --> 00:14.645
or the other side of the market.

00:15.505 --> 00:18.485
So imagine this, you have a farmer

00:18.865 --> 00:21.285
and a rancher next door to each other.

00:22.265 --> 00:25.405
The cattle from the ranchers may trespass

00:25.405 --> 00:27.725
and damage the crops of the farmer's land.

00:28.225 --> 00:31.445
So someone needs to build a fancy middle to stop that.

00:32.395 --> 00:36.405
What the fence loss does, it defines who should build it.

00:36.955 --> 00:39.285
Does the farmer needs to erect the fence

00:39.345 --> 00:42.445
or does the rancher needs to control their, livestocks.

00:43.595 --> 00:46.255
And it was a big issue in the American West.

00:47.595 --> 00:51.055
One reason is that naturally it's environment

00:51.145 --> 00:55.255
where you can profitably grow both livestock and crops.

00:56.245 --> 00:59.585
So you have a mixture of animals with farmers

00:59.845 --> 01:01.945
and that's where the problems happen.

01:03.365 --> 01:07.265
And second fences was actually very expensive.

01:07.855 --> 01:11.065
It's one of the most expensive capital investment,

01:11.305 --> 01:12.985
frontier farmers have to put in.

01:13.645 --> 01:18.225
You need to spend more money to fence 160 acre

01:18.225 --> 01:21.785
of plot than the cash value you can buy the land for.

01:22.445 --> 01:26.425
So it matters a great deal who is legally liable for this?

01:27.445 --> 01:30.505
And as you can imagine, there were many violent

01:31.025 --> 01:33.305
conflicts over the fence laws for more than half a century.

01:33.405 --> 01:36.145
So something's telling us that something's wrong

01:36.145 --> 01:37.145
with the regulations.

01:37.275 --> 01:40.625
There was a long evolution of how the regulation changes.

01:41.925 --> 01:43.305
Um, at the beginning,

01:43.955 --> 01:46.945
regulators were concerned about attracting new

01:47.345 --> 01:48.625
settlers to the frontier.

01:49.605 --> 01:52.905
Um, so every state, most of the states started off

01:53.045 --> 01:55.665
by asking the farmers to erect a fence

01:55.845 --> 01:57.625
to keep the livestock out.

01:59.005 --> 02:00.865
And as time passes by

02:01.005 --> 02:03.225
and the fencing costs becomes such a big problem,

02:04.075 --> 02:06.185
regulators start to change the rules

02:06.365 --> 02:09.985
to shift the liabilities from farmers to ranchers.

02:10.805 --> 02:12.905
But this shifts happens gradually.

02:13.205 --> 02:15.505
So you ended up with a checkerboard pattern

02:16.075 --> 02:17.825
where adjacent county is

02:17.825 --> 02:21.905
with almost exactly the same natural environment, ended up

02:21.935 --> 02:24.785
with different regulations at different points in time.

02:25.405 --> 02:27.425
And so this basically creates the perfect

02:27.975 --> 02:30.745
natural environment for us to empirically test.

02:31.695 --> 02:35.305
Does the regulation matter? And how much does it matter?

02:35.415 --> 02:38.505
There's this famous coast theorem proposed

02:38.565 --> 02:40.785
by Ronald Coast in his seminal paper,

02:41.125 --> 02:42.505
the Problem of social Cost.

02:43.205 --> 02:47.465
He used exactly the same example we had before a farmer

02:47.565 --> 02:50.625
and a rancher and cattle cause damages.

02:51.575 --> 02:56.545
What he finds is that in theory, regardless of who's liable

02:56.545 --> 02:59.855
to build the fence, resource allocation will

02:59.855 --> 03:01.335
be efficient in the end.

03:02.235 --> 03:03.615
But that's a big if

03:04.535 --> 03:08.385
because in reality, we don't have zero transaction costs.

03:08.485 --> 03:10.465
We don't have frictionless market.

03:11.565 --> 03:14.185
In fact, what defense law does is essentially

03:14.825 --> 03:17.025
increase the transaction cost to infinity

03:17.025 --> 03:20.425
because you cannot contract against the

03:20.425 --> 03:21.705
statutory requirement.

03:22.525 --> 03:23.865
And theorists know this.

03:24.605 --> 03:27.625
Um, so har dim sets have shown that in theory,

03:28.535 --> 03:29.985
when there is transaction cost,

03:30.075 --> 03:33.345
there will be inefficient allocations and welfare loss.

03:34.645 --> 03:37.745
And there are empirical cases on fence loss two.

03:38.405 --> 03:42.985
So another famous, study as by Beck, he look at

03:43.085 --> 03:45.945
how does the introduction of barb, the wire fences

03:46.605 --> 03:49.185
change the responses in the market?

03:50.095 --> 03:52.915
So Barb, the wire was this miracle invention

03:53.105 --> 03:55.955
that drastically reduced the cost of fencing

03:56.415 --> 03:58.795
and make it makes it very feasible for you

03:58.795 --> 04:00.715
to settle on land and build a fence.

04:01.585 --> 04:04.875
What he found is that when the cost of fencing reduces,

04:05.215 --> 04:07.995
it increased the settlement, it increased the land value,

04:08.095 --> 04:09.435
it increased the productivity.

04:10.865 --> 04:13.055
But there's a catch bob.

04:13.075 --> 04:16.095
The wire is a technological pro solution

04:16.115 --> 04:17.375
to the problem, right?

04:17.755 --> 04:21.375
It reduces the cost, but it reduces cost to everyone.

04:21.835 --> 04:24.255
It does not shift the liabilities from

04:24.355 --> 04:25.455
one side to the other.

04:26.155 --> 04:28.055
So what I'm looking at is the

04:28.125 --> 04:29.815
statutory solution to the problem.

04:30.555 --> 04:34.135
How does the regulation change affect the outcomes?

04:35.155 --> 04:38.255
And on top of that, B wire was not invented

04:38.595 --> 04:41.935
and adopted widely until the 1880s,

04:42.595 --> 04:45.855
but most of the regulation changes happened,

04:45.855 --> 04:47.775
during the 1860s and seventies.

04:48.635 --> 04:51.455
So it's a different time period and a different solution.

04:52.895 --> 04:55.995
Um, more broadly speaking, ven law is a type

04:56.255 --> 04:57.675
of property rights production.

04:58.375 --> 05:00.395
And many economists have studied the role

05:00.415 --> 05:03.035
of property rights in a lot of environment,

05:03.445 --> 05:05.515
especially in the developing literature.

05:05.935 --> 05:07.195
So team ley studied

05:07.455 --> 05:10.235
how different property rights structures incentivize

05:10.315 --> 05:12.435
different investment, schemes.

05:12.435 --> 05:14.915
In Ghana, Martin Fiman

05:14.935 --> 05:18.835
and Gary Le have compared America and Argentina

05:18.855 --> 05:22.955
and find that the initial property rights allocations caused

05:23.245 --> 05:26.035
persistent differences in farm structure

05:26.095 --> 05:27.555
and agriculture production.

05:28.545 --> 05:31.085
Um, but again, what's different in this setting is

05:31.085 --> 05:34.525
that in many environment, envir settings,

05:35.925 --> 05:38.645
researchers were focusing on formalizing

05:38.825 --> 05:42.285
and delineating property rights, figuring out who has what

05:42.305 --> 05:43.965
and make it transferable in the market.

05:44.945 --> 05:47.155
That was never the problem In the US

05:48.395 --> 05:50.995
property rights was always well-defined and protected.

05:51.915 --> 05:55.535
But this very specific liability rule under this,

05:55.535 --> 05:56.855
well-defined property rights,

05:57.145 --> 05:59.085
Uh, structure still matters

05:59.345 --> 06:02.445
and it still increase, cost inefficiency in the market.

06:02.745 --> 06:05.885
The first data is defense laws.

06:06.375 --> 06:08.045
Where are the laws recorded?

06:08.765 --> 06:12.245
I collected this from, county state session laws.

06:13.155 --> 06:18.005
Section law documented all the regulation changes

06:18.395 --> 06:20.405
including adoption amendment

06:20.945 --> 06:22.925
and repeals happened

06:22.985 --> 06:26.485
during any legislative session at either a state

06:26.545 --> 06:28.405
or territorial of government.

06:29.145 --> 06:32.525
Uh, this is recorded once or every one

06:32.625 --> 06:35.485
or two years, depending on the legislative calendar.

06:35.865 --> 06:37.045
So it's very frequent.

06:38.055 --> 06:40.515
So I click the data for eight states

06:41.255 --> 06:45.155
on the Great Plains from the initial legislation,

06:46.055 --> 06:47.995
all the way to 1930.

06:48.545 --> 06:50.875
This gimme a sample about close

06:50.875 --> 06:53.555
to 700 regulation changes over the time.

06:54.855 --> 06:57.795
Uh, that's on the regulation side of what changes

06:58.575 --> 06:59.675
on the outcome side.

06:59.955 --> 07:02.755
I use the data from the census of agriculture

07:02.855 --> 07:06.355
and land pa land pattern from the Bureau of Land Management.

07:06.855 --> 07:09.795
So these were the data contents, agricultural land use,

07:10.375 --> 07:13.555
output, farm size and settlement types.

07:13.735 --> 07:15.915
And those were the outcomes that I cared about.

07:18.055 --> 07:22.115
Um, so from the data, I can see how the defense law changes

07:22.455 --> 07:23.755
and the historical pattern,

07:24.615 --> 07:26.555
the change occurred at the county level.

07:27.335 --> 07:31.885
Um, it can be driven by either a statewide adoption

07:32.025 --> 07:33.725
or county level exemptions,

07:34.625 --> 07:38.685
but what happens is that it gives you a mixed checkerboard

07:39.185 --> 07:42.245
of how the fence laws will pan out at any,

07:42.305 --> 07:43.485
any given point in time.

07:44.185 --> 07:47.575
So you would have adjacent counties ended up

07:47.575 --> 07:51.295
with very different liability rules, from time to time.

07:51.755 --> 07:56.095
And this allowed me to evaluate the empirical, result

07:56.275 --> 07:59.855
of fence loss and economic outcomes, right?

08:00.435 --> 08:03.815
So the motivation of the empirical test is very intuitive.

08:04.155 --> 08:08.615
So imagine you have two farmers into neighboring counties.

08:09.925 --> 08:13.255
They both need to choose what fraction of land

08:13.795 --> 08:17.375
and what are the variable inputs like labor to allocate

08:17.885 --> 08:21.855
between two types of outputs crops or livestocks.

08:22.955 --> 08:25.375
Um, they face two exogenous factors

08:25.525 --> 08:27.895
that influence their aggregate output.

08:28.075 --> 08:30.935
One is productivity, which depends on the natural

08:30.935 --> 08:32.615
conditions technology.

08:33.355 --> 08:36.535
The other one is defensible how much you get out of the land

08:37.155 --> 08:39.055
net of the damages you may face.

08:40.295 --> 08:42.795
So landowner's problem is basically trying to

08:43.555 --> 08:45.715
maximize the total profit out of the land

08:46.805 --> 08:50.425
by choosing the input materials given the prices

08:50.965 --> 08:52.625
of the input at our good market.

08:53.635 --> 08:56.565
So this means that their optimal choice is gonna be a

08:56.845 --> 09:00.045
function of the factors that affect their output.

09:00.785 --> 09:04.065
So which is productivity, input prices,

09:05.005 --> 09:07.345
output prices, and the fence law.

09:08.455 --> 09:10.115
So for two farmers nearby,

09:10.855 --> 09:13.305
they're gonna have the same productivity level

09:13.305 --> 09:15.905
because your natural environment is very similar.

09:16.685 --> 09:20.145
You also have, similar levels of,

09:20.145 --> 09:21.185
technology available.

09:21.835 --> 09:23.495
So their productivity is the same.

09:24.285 --> 09:27.735
They're also price takers in both the input

09:28.235 --> 09:29.495
and the output market.

09:30.235 --> 09:31.785
So their prices are the same.

09:32.685 --> 09:35.665
The only difference left in their choice is what type

09:35.665 --> 09:36.705
of fence law they're facing.

09:37.285 --> 09:40.025
So by comparing these two adjacent counties,

09:40.845 --> 09:44.105
we can reasonable attribute the differences in outcomes

09:44.685 --> 09:46.585
to differences in regulations.

09:48.045 --> 09:51.505
Sounds easy, but there are some challenges in the,

09:51.765 --> 09:53.825
in the analysis when you look at the law.

09:54.885 --> 09:56.825
So one problem is that

09:57.515 --> 10:01.625
every county is always subject to some type of law.

10:02.095 --> 10:05.705
There's never any ambiguity of who's responsible for it,

10:05.705 --> 10:08.945
because almost at the very first legislature,

10:09.475 --> 10:13.585
every state determines who's liable for it, which means

10:13.585 --> 10:17.385
that there is not the conventional quote unquote untreated

10:17.385 --> 10:20.305
group that were not subject to any regulations.

10:21.895 --> 10:25.595
So to deal with this, I define the treatment here to be the

10:26.235 --> 10:29.155
relative change with respect to your neighbor.

10:29.895 --> 10:34.155
So you'll either increase the ranchers liability relative

10:34.155 --> 10:36.315
to your neighbor or decrease,

10:36.315 --> 10:37.435
or shift the liability

10:37.655 --> 10:40.275
to the farmers relative to your neighbor.

10:40.535 --> 10:41.835
So that solves the one problem.

10:43.295 --> 10:48.225
The other problem is that the change happens multiple times

10:48.855 --> 10:50.265
even at the county level.

10:51.125 --> 10:52.145
So more than half

10:52.145 --> 10:55.785
of the county in the sample changed the laws more than two

10:55.785 --> 10:58.065
times after the initial adoption.

10:58.845 --> 11:02.185
So you have a very complicated treatment path or back

11:02.185 --> 11:04.425
and forth, in a lot of cases,

11:04.915 --> 11:07.785
which makes the comparison quite hard to interpret.

11:09.345 --> 11:13.205
So to simplify, the situation for the analysis,

11:13.725 --> 11:17.005
I restricted the sample to just adjacent counties

11:18.135 --> 11:21.365
where only one county in the pair has changed the

11:21.365 --> 11:23.885
regulations and only changed once.

11:25.005 --> 11:28.225
So we ended up with a group of clean treatment

11:28.225 --> 11:32.985
and the controls where you guys started off the same one guy

11:32.985 --> 11:35.665
for some idiosyncratic raise and changed the regulations,

11:36.005 --> 11:38.425
and then we can compare the outcomes there.

11:38.515 --> 11:40.785
There are three main groups of findings.

11:41.165 --> 11:43.105
So first is on land use.

11:43.855 --> 11:47.105
What I find is that shifting the liability from farmers

11:47.405 --> 11:49.945
to ranchers increase the share

11:49.945 --> 11:52.505
of land using agricultural production

11:52.725 --> 11:53.765
Or landing farms.

11:55.575 --> 11:58.355
And in addition to the aggregate change, I also find

11:58.355 --> 12:02.195
that almost all the increase in the agricultural land comes

12:02.265 --> 12:03.635
from improve the land.

12:04.105 --> 12:06.595
Meaning that people are not just going out there

12:06.615 --> 12:07.995
and claiming more plots.

12:08.305 --> 12:10.915
They were actively invested in the land

12:10.975 --> 12:15.195
to convert the natural prairie lands into farmlands

12:15.195 --> 12:16.835
through plowing or irrigation.

12:17.415 --> 12:20.275
So the shifting in liabilities increase the scale

12:20.575 --> 12:23.355
of agricultural production just by increased

12:24.015 --> 12:25.755
how many plots of land you're plowing.

12:27.205 --> 12:30.145
Second is, aggregated output

12:31.005 --> 12:34.495
because you sh when you shift the liabilities from farmers

12:34.635 --> 12:37.335
to ranchers induced more land use,

12:37.875 --> 12:41.015
you naturally have more output coming out of your area.

12:42.165 --> 12:46.385
So the total output per acre of county areas cha increased.

12:47.705 --> 12:52.205
The caveat here is that there's no efficiency gains.

12:52.825 --> 12:56.085
So the average output per acre of farmland

12:56.685 --> 12:59.965
actually stays the same between the two adjacent counties.

13:00.505 --> 13:03.605
So meaning that there were actually no productivity gains

13:03.625 --> 13:06.685
or any type of economy scale in agriculture

13:06.685 --> 13:07.925
sectors at that point.

13:09.855 --> 13:12.715
So those were aggregate conditions

13:13.225 --> 13:15.635
that reflects the stock of

13:16.105 --> 13:19.235
what we have on the market at any, any point in time.

13:20.015 --> 13:23.115
But we also want to know what happens to the flow

13:23.415 --> 13:24.595
or the new settlers,

13:25.065 --> 13:29.075
because remember, a big policy concern back then is

13:29.095 --> 13:30.355
to attract more people.

13:30.855 --> 13:33.395
So we want to know does change the regulations actually

13:33.395 --> 13:34.395
ended up doing that.

13:35.575 --> 13:38.595
So to see this, I used the land patent data

13:39.185 --> 13:41.035
from the Bureau of Land Management.

13:41.855 --> 13:44.875
The land patents is issued to everyone who

13:46.235 --> 13:48.475
acquired land from the federal government.

13:48.655 --> 13:50.995
So any transaction from the federal holding

13:51.175 --> 13:54.115
to private holding is recorded by a patent.

13:55.365 --> 13:57.495
What is particularly important is

13:57.495 --> 14:00.455
that this data contains information on the types

14:00.515 --> 14:02.175
of claims that was filed.

14:02.835 --> 14:06.135
So was your land claimed through homestead

14:06.715 --> 14:09.335
or did you buy your land with cash directly?

14:10.375 --> 14:12.955
We also have information on the location of land

14:13.375 --> 14:14.675
and the size of the plot.

14:15.135 --> 14:18.515
So this gave us a sense of where are the newcomers,

14:18.615 --> 14:20.435
who are the newcomers and how they're selling.

14:21.895 --> 14:23.835
So using this data, I find

14:23.955 --> 14:27.915
that increasing farmers' liability seems to be a bad idea.

14:28.575 --> 14:29.875
The policymakers are right.

14:30.535 --> 14:32.285
Increasing farmers' liability

14:32.825 --> 14:35.005
or requiring them to enclose their land

14:35.715 --> 14:38.205
reduces the total number of land claims

14:38.865 --> 14:43.205
and reduces the total acreage of land claims only

14:43.285 --> 14:44.325
through cash purchase

14:45.305 --> 14:48.365
and conditional, you are buying a plot of land.

14:48.945 --> 14:50.885
The acreage of your plot also,

14:51.185 --> 14:53.645
Uh, shrinks if you settle in a place

14:53.835 --> 14:56.765
that has more liability on farmers than ranchers.

14:58.095 --> 15:01.105
However, this effect is not asymmetrical.

15:01.365 --> 15:05.105
So if we look at homestead patents, it stays the same.

15:05.135 --> 15:08.985
There's no change between the two adjacent counties in terms

15:09.005 --> 15:12.905
of number of patents filed, the total acreage claimed

15:13.245 --> 15:16.585
or the average plot size claimed, under homestead,

15:16.735 --> 15:19.105
even when the property rights were well-defined

15:19.105 --> 15:20.225
and well protected.

15:20.885 --> 15:24.745
The subtle rules of liability assignment can still have

15:25.275 --> 15:27.625
persistent and large inefficiency

15:27.625 --> 15:28.985
implications on the market.

15:30.045 --> 15:32.545
And this is not just a historical relic.

15:33.085 --> 15:37.025
We still see conflicts over offenses today, both in the US

15:37.245 --> 15:38.705
and in developing countries.

15:39.445 --> 15:41.665
And this suggests that we need more research

15:42.215 --> 15:45.345
into property rights, not just on formalizing

15:45.525 --> 15:47.705
or delineating property rights,

15:48.005 --> 15:51.465
but also on the nuanced requirements that were attached

15:51.465 --> 15:51.865
to the rules.

"Navigating the Complexities of Fence Laws in the American West: Liability, Costs, and Agricultural Impacts"

00:00:00 - The context is fence laws in the America West. This is a very esoteric regulation. What it does is assign the default property protection liabilities to one side or the other side of the market. So imagine this, you have a farmer and a rancher next door to each other. The cattle from the ranchers may trespass and damage the crops of the farmer's land. So someone needs to build a fancy middle to stop that. What the fence loss does, it defines who should build it. Does the farmer needs to erect the fence or does the rancher needs to control their, livestocks.
00:00:47 - One reason is that naturally it's environment where you can profitably grow both livestock and crops. So you have a mixture of animals with farmers and that's where the problems happen. And second fences was actually very expensive. It's one of the most expensive capital investment, frontier farmers have to put in. You need to spend more money to fence 160 acre of plot than the cash value you can buy the land for. So it matters a great deal who is legally liable for this?
00:01:31 - conflicts over the fence laws for more than half a century. So something's telling us that something's wrong with the regulations. There was a long evolution of how the regulation changes. at the beginning, regulators were concerned about attracting new settlers to the frontier. so every state, most of the states started off by asking the farmers to erect a fence to keep the livestock out. And as time passes by and the fencing costs becomes such a big problem, regulators start to change the rules to shift the liabilities from farmers to ranchers.
00:02:13 - So you ended up with a checkerboard pattern where adjacent county is with almost exactly the same natural environment, ended up with different regulations at different points in time. And so this basically creates the perfect natural environment for us to empirically test. Does the regulation matter? And how much does it matter? There's this famous coast theorem proposed by Ronald Coast in his seminal paper, the Problem of social Cost. He used exactly the same example we had before a farmer and a rancher and cattle cause damages.
00:02:56 - to build the fence, resource allocation will be efficient in the end. But that's a big if because in reality, we don't have zero transaction costs. We don't have frictionless market. In fact, what defense law does is essentially increase the transaction cost to infinity because you cannot contract against the statutory requirement. And theorists know this. so har dim sets have shown that in theory, when there is transaction cost, there will be inefficient allocations and welfare loss.
00:03:38 - So another famous, study as by Beck, he look at how does the introduction of barb, the wire fences change the responses in the market? So Barb, the wire was this miracle invention that drastically reduced the cost of fencing and make it makes it very feasible for you to settle on land and build a fence. What he found is that when the cost of fencing reduces, it increased the settlement, it increased the land value, it increased the productivity. But there's a catch bob. The wire is a technological pro solution

"Examining the Impact of Regulation Changes on Property Rights and Agricultural Outcomes in the American West"

00:04:17 - It reduces the cost, but it reduces cost to everyone. It does not shift the liabilities from one side to the other. So what I'm looking at is the statutory solution to the problem. How does the regulation change affect the outcomes? And on top of that, B wire was not invented and adopted widely until the 1880s, but most of the regulation changes happened, during the 1860s and seventies. So it's a different time period and a different solution. more broadly speaking, ven law is a type
00:04:58 - And many economists have studied the role of property rights in a lot of environment, especially in the developing literature. So team ley studied how different property rights structures incentivize different investment, schemes. In Ghana, Martin Fiman and Gary Le have compared America and Argentina and find that the initial property rights allocations caused persistent differences in farm structure and agriculture production. but again, what's different in this setting is that in many environment, envir settings, researchers were focusing on formalizing
00:05:42 - and make it transferable in the market. That was never the problem In the US property rights was always well-defined and protected. But this very specific liability rule under this, well-defined property rights, structure still matters and it still increase, cost inefficiency in the market. The first data is defense laws. Where are the laws recorded? I collected this from, county state session laws. Section law documented all the regulation changes including adoption amendment
00:06:22 - during any legislative session at either a state or territorial of government. this is recorded once or every one or two years, depending on the legislative calendar. So it's very frequent. So I click the data for eight states on the Great Plains from the initial legislation, all the way to 1930. This gimme a sample about close to 700 regulation changes over the time. that's on the regulation side of what changes on the outcome side. I use the data from the census of agriculture
00:07:06 - So these were the data contents, agricultural land use, output, farm size and settlement types. And those were the outcomes that I cared about. so from the data, I can see how the defense law changes and the historical pattern, the change occurred at the county level. it can be driven by either a statewide adoption or county level exemptions, but what happens is that it gives you a mixed checkerboard of how the fence laws will pan out at any, any given point in time.
00:07:47 - with very different liability rules, from time to time. And this allowed me to evaluate the empirical, result of fence loss and economic outcomes, right? So the motivation of the empirical test is very intuitive. So imagine you have two farmers into neighboring counties. They both need to choose what fraction of land and what are the variable inputs like labor to allocate between two types of outputs crops or livestocks. they face two exogenous factors

"Impact of Fence Law Regulations on Agricultural Productivity and Land Use in Adjacent Counties"

00:08:28 - One is productivity, which depends on the natural conditions technology. The other one is defensible how much you get out of the land net of the damages you may face. So landowner's problem is basically trying to maximize the total profit out of the land by choosing the input materials given the prices of the input at our good market. So this means that their optimal choice is gonna be a function of the factors that affect their output. So which is productivity, input prices, output prices, and the fence law.
00:09:10 - they're gonna have the same productivity level because your natural environment is very similar. You also have, similar levels of, technology available. So their productivity is the same. They're also price takers in both the input and the output market. So their prices are the same. The only difference left in their choice is what type of fence law they're facing. So by comparing these two adjacent counties, we can reasonable attribute the differences in outcomes to differences in regulations. Sounds easy, but there are some challenges in the,
00:09:54 - So one problem is that every county is always subject to some type of law. There's never any ambiguity of who's responsible for it, because almost at the very first legislature, every state determines who's liable for it, which means that there is not the conventional quote unquote untreated group that were not subject to any regulations. So to deal with this, I define the treatment here to be the relative change with respect to your neighbor. So you'll either increase the ranchers liability relative
00:10:36 - or shift the liability to the farmers relative to your neighbor. So that solves the one problem. The other problem is that the change happens multiple times even at the county level. So more than half of the county in the sample changed the laws more than two times after the initial adoption. So you have a very complicated treatment path or back and forth, in a lot of cases, which makes the comparison quite hard to interpret. So to simplify, the situation for the analysis, I restricted the sample to just adjacent counties
00:11:21 - regulations and only changed once. So we ended up with a group of clean treatment and the controls where you guys started off the same one guy for some idiosyncratic raise and changed the regulations, and then we can compare the outcomes there. There are three main groups of findings. So first is on land use. What I find is that shifting the liability from farmers to ranchers increase the share of land using agricultural production Or landing farms. And in addition to the aggregate change, I also find
00:12:02 - from improve the land. Meaning that people are not just going out there and claiming more plots. They were actively invested in the land to convert the natural prairie lands into farmlands through plowing or irrigation. So the shifting in liabilities increase the scale of agricultural production just by increased how many plots of land you're plowing. Second is, aggregated output because you sh when you shift the liabilities from farmers to ranchers induced more land use, you naturally have more output coming out of your area.

"The Impact of Farmers' Liability on Agricultural Productivity and Land Claims"**

00:12:47 - The caveat here is that there's no efficiency gains. So the average output per acre of farmland actually stays the same between the two adjacent counties. So meaning that there were actually no productivity gains or any type of economy scale in agriculture sectors at that point. So those were aggregate conditions that reflects the stock of what we have on the market at any, any point in time. But we also want to know what happens to the flow
00:13:25 - because remember, a big policy concern back then is to attract more people. So we want to know does change the regulations actually ended up doing that. So to see this, I used the land patent data from the Bureau of Land Management. The land patents is issued to everyone who acquired land from the federal government. So any transaction from the federal holding to private holding is recorded by a patent. What is particularly important is that this data contains information on the types of claims that was filed. So was your land claimed through homestead
00:14:10 - We also have information on the location of land and the size of the plot. So this gave us a sense of where are the newcomers, who are the newcomers and how they're selling. So using this data, I find that increasing farmers' liability seems to be a bad idea. The policymakers are right. Increasing farmers' liability or requiring them to enclose their land reduces the total number of land claims and reduces the total acreage of land claims only through cash purchase and conditional, you are buying a plot of land.
00:14:51 - shrinks if you settle in a place that has more liability on farmers than ranchers. However, this effect is not asymmetrical. So if we look at homestead patents, it stays the same. There's no change between the two adjacent counties in terms of number of patents filed, the total acreage claimed or the average plot size claimed, under homestead, even when the property rights were well-defined and well protected. The subtle rules of liability assignment can still have persistent and large inefficiency implications on the market.
00:15:51 - We still see conflicts over offenses today, both in the US and in developing countries. And this suggests that we need more research into property rights, not just on formalizing or delineating property rights, but also on the nuanced requirements that were attached to the rules.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Research

Policy

Analysis