How markets can end persistent intra-organizational conflict

David Zetland

Abstract


The literature has described the origin and cost of intra-organizational conflict within the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET). This article explores how this conflict has persisted and suggest ways to resolve it. The key action requires that institutions designed with the assumption of abundant water be reformed to manage scarce water. Without modification to MET's legal and operational structures, an internal auction market can efficiently and transparently allocate water among MET's member agencies. A careful allocation of rights to water and revenues from that market make it possible to address issues of fairness (access to water for individuals) and to repay past member agency contributions that thus far have subsidized MET's operations.

Keywords


Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

Full Text:

PDF

References


Benz, M. 2004. “Introducing Procedural Utility: Not only What, but also How Matters.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics. Vol. 160, No. 3, pp. 377-401.

Blake, E.L., J.L. Guyton, and S. Leventhal. 1994. “The Coase Theorem vs. Conditional Rationality: An Experimental Investigation of the Empty Core.” University of Maryland (Government and Politics). Working Paper. See: http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/oppenheimer/831/blake.pdf

Buchanan, J.M. and G. Tullock. 1999/1962. The Calculus of Consent. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.

Chenoweth, J. 2008. “Minimum Water Requirement for Social and Economic Development.” Desalination. Vol. 229, pp. 245-256.

Flaxman, B.E. 1976. “The Price of Water: Who Pays and Who Benefits? A Policy Study of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.” Masters Thesis (public policy studies). Claremont Graduate School.

Frey, B.S. and A. Stutzer. 2005. “Beyond Outcomes: Measuring Procedural Utility.” Oxford Economic Papers. Vol. 57, pp. 90-111.

Hart, O. and J. Moore. 1996. “The Governance of Exchanges: Members’ Cooperatives versus Outside Ownership.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy. Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 53-69.

Hart, O. and J. Moore. 1998. “Cooperatives vs. Outside Ownership.” NBER Working Paper 6421.

Heller, M.A. 1998. “The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets.” Harvard Law Review. Vol. 111, No. 3, pp. 621-688..

Henrich, J., et al. 2001. “In Search of Homo Economicus: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies.” American Economic Review. Vol. 91, No. 2, pp. 73-78.

Howitt, R.E. 1997. “Water Market-Based Conflict Resolution.” In R. Sanchez, J. Woled, and D. Tilly, eds. Proceedings of the First Biennial Rosenberg International Forum on Water Policy: Resolving Conflict in the Management of Water Resources. No. 93 in Water Resources Center Report. University of California Centers for Water and Wildlife Resources.

Mansur, E.T. and S.M. Olmstead. 2007. “The Value of Scarce Water: Measuring the Inefficiency of Municipal Regulations.” Working Paper. http://www.som.yale.edu/faculty/etm7/papers/mansur_olmstead_water.pdf.

Murphy, J.J., et al. 2000. “The Design of ‘Smart’ Water Market Institutions Using Laboratory Experiments.” Environmental and Resource Economics. Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 375-394.

Plott, C.R. and D.P. Porter. 1996. “Market Architectures and Institutional Testbedding: An Experiment with Space Station Pricing Policies.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 237-272.

Shleifer, A. 1985. “A Theory of Yardstick Competition.” Rand Journal of Economics. Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 319-327.

WSAA Staff (2010). “Implications of Population Growth in Australia on Urban Water Resources.” WSAA Occasional Paper 25. Melbourne: Water Services Association of Australia.

Zetland, D. 2008a. “Conflict and Cooperation Within an Organization: A Case Study of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.” PhD thesis (agricultural and resource economics). Davis, CA: University of California, Davis.

Zetland, D. 2008b. “Focal Points in Public Goods Games: Explicit Information Increases Reciprocation.” Working Paper, SSRN Working Paper 1122144.

Zetland, D. 2009. Conflict and Cooperation Within an Organization: A Case Study of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag.

Zetland, D. 2011. “Intra-organizational conflict: Origin and cost.” The Economics of Peace and Security Journal. Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 12-21.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15355/epsj.6.1.22

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.