The Property Prism

Thomas W. Merrill

Econ Journal Watch, 2011, vol. 8, issue 3, pages 247-254

Abstract: The "bundle of rights" metaphor has framed several important questions about property, including questions in constitutional law, conceptual analysis, and institutional understanding. But the bundle metaphor is notably unsuccessful in answering any of these questions. A better metaphor is that of a prism. Property is an institution that takes on a different coloration from different angles, each corresponding to a different audience. For the audience of strangers, property reflects a simple rule of exclusion. For other audiences, property reflects more complex rules or forms, as befits the smaller numbers of affected parties and the higher stakes they have in the use of particular assets. The bundle metaphor suggests that property is complex, but also that it is formless and completely malleable on all dimensions. The prism metaphor suggests that property is both simple and complex, depending on the relevant audience, and that it has an inherent structural integrity determined largely by information costs.

Keywords: Property; bundle of rights; exclusion; legal realism; takings; legal audience; prism (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: A1 K00 K1 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2011
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)
http://econjwatch.org/file_download/503/MerrillSept2011.pdf (application/pdf)
http://econjwatch.org/757 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ejw:journl:v:8:y:2011:i:3:p:247-254

Access Statistics for this article

Econ Journal Watch is edited by Daniel Klein

More articles in Econ Journal Watch from Econ Journal Watch
Contact information at EDIRC.
Series data maintained by Jason Briggeman (). This e-mail address is bad, please contact .