Town Planning Review

A transaction-cost analysis of Swiss land improvement syndicates

Town Planning Review (2019), 90, (5), 545–565.

Abstract

Land improvement syndicates (LIS) are a land-policy instrument that has been implemented in Switzerland to incorporate land readjustments, zoning changes and infrastructure provisions within a single instrument. These instruments address contentious situations, such as disagreements among landowners, inappropriate property subdivisions, problematic allocations of development rights, and the distribution of infrastructure provision costs. LIS redistribute added land values and costs of land development between landowners in a more equitable manner. While LIS have been in place for several decades, there have been limited studies on institutional aspects of these policy instruments, and particularly their associated transaction costs. In line with the transaction-cost economics theory, this paper considers the activities involved in the formation and execution of LIS as a series of transactions and discusses when and why transaction costs arise throughout the life cycle of the policy instrument. To this end, this paper uses an LIS case study in the commune of Cheseaux, Canton Vaud. The results of this paper show the variance of transaction costs across time, actor and activity. Activities such as preparation of the feasibility study and infrastructure provision are among those that appear to generate particularly considerable transaction costs. In addition to this, there is evidence of lengthy negotiations surrounding the existing and future land values and redistribution of development rights.

Access Token
£25.00

References

ALEXANDER, E. R. (1992), ‘A transaction cost theory of planning’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 58, 190–200. Google Scholar

ALEXANDER, E. R. (2001), ‘A transaction-cost theory of land use planning and development control: towards the institutional analysis of public planning’, Town Planning Review, 72, 45–75. Google Scholar

ALLEN, D. W. (1999), ‘Transaction costs’, in B. Bouckaert and G. de Geest (eds), Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 893–926. Google Scholar

BAUD, E. (2016), ‘Syndicat d’améliorations foncières: Aménagement du territoire (AT-AF). Etude de cas à Cheseaux-sur-Lausanne’ (master’s thesis), Université de Lausanne. Google Scholar

BESSON, C. and COURDESSE, R. (1999), Syndicat d’améliorations foncières de l’évitement de Cheseaux numéro 2667, Rapport de la commission de classification, Cheseaux. Google Scholar

BUCHANAN, J. M. and TULLOCK, G. (1962), The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations for Constitutional Democracy, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar

BUITELAAR, E. (2004), ‘A transaction-cost analysis of the land development process’, Urban Studies, 41, 2539–53. Google Scholar

BUITELAAR, E. (2007), The Cost of Land Use Decisions: Applying Transaction Cost Economics to Planning and Development, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing. Google Scholar

CALLIES, D. L. (2000), Bargaining for Development: A Handbook on Development Agreements, Annexation Agreements, Land Development Conditions, Vested Rights, and the Provision of Public Facilities, Washington, DC, Environmental Law Institute. Google Scholar

CANTON VAUD (2015), Cadastre foncier, Guichet cartographique cantonal, Lausanne. Google Scholar

CHEUNG, S. N. S. (1973), ‘The fable of the bees: an economic investigation’, Journal of Law & Economics, 16, 11–33. Google Scholar

CHO, C.-J. (2011), ‘An analysis of the housing redevelopment process in Korea through the lens of the transaction cost framework’, Urban Studies, 48, 1477–501. Google Scholar

COASE, R. H. (1937), ‘The nature of the firm’, Economica, 4, 386–405. Google Scholar

COGGAN, A., BUITELAAR, E., WHITTEN, S. and BENNETT, J. (2013), ‘Factors that influence transaction costs in development offsets: who bears what and why?’, Ecological Economics, 88, 222–31. Google Scholar

COGGAN, A., VAN GRIEKEN, M., BOULLIER, A. and JARDI, X. (2015), ‘Private transaction costs of participation in water quality improvement programs for Australia’s Great Barrier Reef: extent, causes and policy implications’, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 59, 499–517. Google Scholar

COGGAN, A., WHITTEN, S. M. and BENNETT, J. (2010), ‘Influences of transaction costs in environmental policy’, Ecological Economics, 69, 1777–84. Google Scholar

CONDESSA, B., MORAIS DE SÁ, A., CAMBRA, P. and FERREIRA, J. A. (2015), ‘Land readjustment in Portugal: the case of Sines’, Town Planning Review, 86, 381–410. Google Scholar

COURDESSE, R. (2014), ‘Les améliorations foncières en territoire agricole, un domaine d’activité riche en enseignements pour les aménagistes’, Collage, 6, 16–19. Google Scholar

DARABI, H. and JALALI, D. (2019), ‘Illuminating the formal–informal dichotomy in land development on the basis of transaction cost theory’, Planning Theory, 18, 100–21. Google Scholar

DAWKINS, C. J. (2000), ‘Transaction costs and the land use planning process’, Journal of Planning Literature, 14, 507–18. Google Scholar

DEMSETZ, H. (1968), ‘The cost of transacting’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 82, 33–53. Google Scholar

FALCONER, K. and SAUNDERS, C. (2002), ‘Transaction costs for SSSIs and policy design’, Land Use Policy, 19, 157–66. Google Scholar

FARTHING, S. M. (1995), ‘Landowner involvement in local plans: how patterns of involvement both reflect and conceal influence’, Journal of Property Research, 12, 41–61. Google Scholar

FLYVBJERG, B. (2013), ‘Case study’, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th edn, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 301–16. Google Scholar

GEORGE, A. and BENNETT, A. (2005), Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Google Scholar

GERBER, J.-D., NAHRATH, S. and HARTMANN, T. (2017), ‘The strategic use of time-limited property rights in land-use planning: evidence from Switzerland’, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 49, 1684–703. Google Scholar

HONG, Y.-H. (2007), ‘Assembling land for urban development: issues and opportunities’, in Y.-H. H. A. B. Needham (ed.), Analyzing Land Readjustment: Economics, Law, and Collective Action, Toronto, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 3–34. Google Scholar

KNOEPFEL, P., NAHRATH, S. and VARONE., F. (2007), ‘Institutional regimes for natural resources: an innovative theoretical framwork for sustainability’, in P. Knoepfel (ed.), Environmental Policy Analysis: Learning from the Past for the Future – 25 Years of Research, Berlin, Springer, 455–98. Google Scholar

LAI, Y. and TANG, B. (2016), ‘Institutional barriers to redevelopment of urban villages in China: a transaction cost perspective’, Land Use Policy, 58, 482–90. Google Scholar

LEROY, D. (2008), Coordination aménagement du territoire et aspects fonciers: Descriptif du système vaudois et exemple d’application Lausanne, Etat de Vaud, Service du développement territorial. Google Scholar

MCCANN, L. (2013), ‘Transaction costs and environmental policy design’, Ecological Economics, 88, 253–62. Google Scholar

MCCANN, L., COLBY, B., EASTER, K. W., KASTERINE, A. and KUPERAN, K. V. (2005), ‘Transaction cost measurement for evaluating environmental policies’, Ecological Economics, 52, 527–42. Google Scholar

MARTI, J.-L. and COURDESSE, R. (2003), Syndicat d’améliorations foncières de derrière le château numéro 2752, Rapport de la commission de classification, Cheseaux. Google Scholar

MICELI, T. J. and SEGERSON, K. (2012), ‘Land assembly and the holdout problem under sequential bargaining’, American Law and Economics Review, 14, 372–90. Google Scholar

NEEDHAM, B. and DE KAM, G. (2004), ‘Understanding how land is exchanged: co-ordination mechanisms and transaction costs’, Urban Studies, 41, 2061–76. Google Scholar

NILSSON, M. and SUNDQVIST, T. (2007), ‘Using the market at a cost: how the introduction of green certificates in Sweden led to market inefficiencies’, Utilities Policy, 15, 49–59. Google Scholar

NORTH, D. C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

NORTH, D. C. (1992), Transaction Costs, Institutions, and Economic Performance, San Francisco, ICS Press. Google Scholar

PANNELL, D. J., ROBERTS, A. M., PARK, G. and ALEXANDER, J. (2013), ‘Improving environmental decisions: a transaction-costs story’, Ecological Economics, 88, 244–52. Google Scholar

PRÉLAZ-DROUX, R. (2008), ‘Des instruments fonciers pour faciliter les projets territoriaux’, Urbia, 6, 43–64. Google Scholar

PRÉLAZ-DROUX, R. (2009), ‘Le développement territorial durable, les politiques foncières et les instruments fonciers’, Géomatique suisse: Géoinformation et gestion du territoire, 107, 153–60. Google Scholar

RITCHIE, J. and SPENCER, L. (2002), ‘Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research’, in A. M. Huberman and M. B. Miles (eds), The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion, Thousand Oaks, CA, SAGE Publications, 173–94. Google Scholar

RØRSTAD, P. K., VATN, A. and KVAKKESTAD, V. (2007), ‘Why do transaction costs of agricultural policies vary?’, Agricultural Economics, 36, 1–11. Google Scholar

SAGER, T. (2006), ‘The logic of critical communicative planning: transaction cost alteration’, Planning Theory, 5, 223–54. Google Scholar

SCHNEIDER, J.-R., COURDESSE, R., DERIAZ, J.-Y., GILLIAND, G., KREBS, J.-C. and MARTI, J.-L. (2003), Les démarches foncières en pays de Vaud Lausanne, Service des améliorations foncières du Canton de Vaud et Société vaudoise des améliorations foncières. Google Scholar

SHAHAB, S., CLINCH, J. P. and O’NEILL, E. (2017), ‘Impact-based planning evaluation: advancing normative criteria for policy analysis’, Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46, 534–50. Google Scholar

SHAHAB, S., CLINCH, J. P. and O’NEILL, E. (2018a), ‘Accounting for transaction costs in planning policy evaluation’, Land Use Policy, 70, 263–72. Google Scholar

SHAHAB, S., CLINCH, J. P. and O’NEILL, E. (2018b), ‘Estimates of transaction costs in transfer of development rights programs’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 84, 61–75. Google Scholar

SHAHAB, S., CLINCH, J. P. and O’NEILL, E. (2018c), ‘Timing and distributional aspects of transaction costs in transferable development rights programmes’, Habitat International, 75, 131–38. Google Scholar

SHAHAB, S., CLINCH, J. P. and O’NEILL, E. (2019), ‘An analysis of the factors influencing transaction costs in transferable development rights programmes’, Ecological Economics, 156, 409–19. Google Scholar

SLAEV, A. D. (2016), ‘The relationship between planning and the market from the perspective of property rights theory: a transaction cost analysis’, Planning Theory, 16, 404–24. Google Scholar

STAVINS, R. N. (1995), ‘Transaction costs and tradeable permits’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29, 133–48. Google Scholar

STUTZ, R. (1978), Plan des zones, Commune de Cheseaux, Cheseaux. Google Scholar

TAN, R., BECKMANN, V., QU, F. and WU, C. (2012), ‘Governing farmland conversion for urban development from the perspective of transaction cost economics’, Urban Studies, 49, 2265–83. Google Scholar

THOMAS, R. and BERTOLINI, L. (2014), ‘Beyond the case study dilemma in urban planning: using a meta-matrix to distil critical success factors in transit-oriented development’, Urban Policy and Research, 32, 219–37. Google Scholar

TILLEMANS, L., RUEGG, J., PRÉLAZ-DROUX, R. and WEBER, P. (2011), ‘Making land-use fit to planning goals: weaknesses and opportunities within the Swiss land management regime’, in M. Tira, E. V. D. Krabben and B. Zanon (eds), Land Management for Urban Dynamics: Innovative Methods and Practices for a Changing Europe, Santarcangelo di Romagna, Maggioli, 253–68. Google Scholar

VIALLON, F.-X. (2017), ‘Redistributive instruments in Swiss land use policy: a discussion based on local examples of implementation’ (PhD thesis), University of Lausanne. Google Scholar

VIALLON, F.-X., BOMBENGER, P.-H., LEROY, D. and NAHRATH, S. (2017), ‘Des syndicats fonciers pour déplacer les droits à bâtir’, La revue foncière, 22–25. Google Scholar

WANG, N. (2007), ‘Measuring transaction costs: diverging approaches, contending practices’, Division of Labour & Transaction Costs, 2, 111–46. Google Scholar

WEBER, P., PRÉLAZ-DROUX, R., RUEGG, J. and TILLEMANS, L. (2011), ‘How to supply enough land at the right place and time? An answer given by the canton of Vaud’, in Tira et al. (eds), 381–99. Google Scholar

WEBSTER, C. J. and LAI, L. W.-C. (2003), Property Rights, Planning and Markets: Managing Spontaneous Cities, Cheltenham, Edward Edgar. Google Scholar

WILLIAMSON, O. E. (1975), Markets and Hierarchies, Analysis and Antitrust Implications: A Study in the Economics of Internal Organization, New York, Free Press. Google Scholar

WILLIAMSON, O. E. (1981), ‘The economics of organization: the transaction cost approach’, American Journal of Sociology, 87, 548–77. Google Scholar

WILLIAMSON, O. E. (1985), The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, New York, Free Press. Google Scholar

WILLIAMSON, O. E. (1993), ‘Opportunism and its critics’, Managerial and Decision Economics, 14, 97–107. Google Scholar

WILLIAMSON, O. E. (1996), The Mechanisms of Governance, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

WILLIAMSON, O. E. (1998), ‘Transaction cost economics: how it works; where it is headed’, De Economist, 146, 23–58. Google Scholar

YIN, R. K. (2013), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, London, SAGE Publications. Google Scholar

If you have private access to this content, please log in with your username and password here

Details

Author details

Shahab, Sina

Viallon, François-Xavier