Search results

Urbanisation, environmental sustainability and property markets are intertwined. Consequently, studies on any of these three topics need to take the other two topics into consideration. By critically reviewing 33 hedonic pricing studies in 16 key journals in the urban studies and environmental policies areas, we summarise quantitative evidence on the price of environmental externalities resulting from China's urbanisation process. We find that Chinese residents are willing to pay more for the access to green space and waterbody as well as the treatment of urban pollution. The cost and benefit of these amenities and disamenities have already been capitalised in house prices. The central and local government in China can leverage market force to encourage, support and facilitate sustainable urban development and environmental protection, instead of directly intervening in the property market by using public resources. Meanwhile, the estimated hedonic price of Urban Green, Urban Blue and Urban Grey helps policymakers to understand the cost and benefit of their urban development decisions. Our review of the papers on Urban Green, Urban Blue and Urban Grey suggests that there have been promising and encouraging development in studies on all three topics in the last decade. The quality and quantity of hedonic price research has been improving notably. However, it is also clear that there is virtually no empirical evidence from the second- or third-tier cities, particularly, regarding Urban Green and Urban Blue investigations. The small number of existing hedonic studies is far from sufficient to draw reliable conclusions about the costs of environmental externality for cities that have not been studied. What works in first-tier cities may not hold elsewhere in China due to the large geographical variation in natural endowment, economic development status and local customs. There are many pieces that are missing from this big picture. More hedonic price studies are needed.

Many jurisdictions fine illegal cartels using penalty guidelines that presume an arbitrary 10% overcharge. This article surveys more than 700 published economic studies and judicial decisions that contain 2,041 quantitative estimates of overcharges of hard-core cartels. The primary findings are: (1) the median average long-run overcharge for all types of cartels over all time periods is 23.0%; (2) the mean average is at least 49%; (3) overcharges reached their zenith in 1891–1945 and have trended downward ever since; (4) 6% of the cartel episodes are zero; (5) median overcharges of international-membership cartels are 38% higher than those of domestic cartels; (6) convicted cartels are on average 19% more effective at raising prices as unpunished cartels; (7) bid-rigging conduct displays 25% lower markups than price-fixing cartels; (8) contemporary cartels targeted by class actions have higher overcharges; and (9) when cartels operate at peak effectiveness, price changes are 60–80% higher than the whole episode. Historical penalty guidelines aimed at optimally deterring cartels are likely to be too low.