Just Compensation, Incentives, and Social Meanings

Hanoch Dagan*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterpeer-review

Abstract

In Takings, Efficiency, and Distributive Justice: A Response to Professor Dagan; Glynn Lunney challenged the plausibility and the desirability of the thesis offered in Takings and Distributive Justice (Chapter 5) and proposed an alternative. This chapter compares both approaches. It concludes that Lunney's careful examination of the public choice analysis of takings does refine the theory in Chapter 5. Contrary to Lunney's claims, however, these refinements reinforce-rather than undermine-the viability of the proposed takings doctrine. Sections I and II set the stage by summarizing the principal claims made, respectively, in Chapter 5 and in Lunney's response. Sections III and IV constitute the core of the chapter, vindicating both the plausibility and the normative desirability of the author's proposed doctrine. Section V provides two examples. A brief conclusion follows.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProperty
Subtitle of host publicationValues and Institutions
PublisherOxford University Press
ISBN (Electronic)9780199894994
ISBN (Print)9780199737864
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 May 2011

Keywords

  • Glynn lunney
  • Social responsibility
  • Takings doctrine
  • Takings law

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Just Compensation, Incentives, and Social Meanings'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this