tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post112969373002834415..comments2024-03-28T15:48:48.514-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Property Rights vs Propertarianism: Part IDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1129825615714922742005-10-20T09:26:00.000-07:002005-10-20T09:26:00.000-07:00For a contrarian take on De Soto, see John Gravois...For a contrarian take on De Soto, see John Gravois's article in _Slate_ from January 2005: http://www.slate.com/id/2112792/<BR/><BR/>"De Soto's vision of the Third World is instinctively appealing. He sees industrious, entrepreneurial slum-dwellers, toiling with boundless ingenuity, yet living in homes and owning businesses that are theirs only by de facto possession and jury-rigged local agreements, not by de jure deed and title. . . . <BR/>On the level of gee-whiz metaphors and moving rhetoric, de Soto deserves a lot of credit: He's brought an unprecedented degree of attention and funding to the vital and fascinating issue of squatters and informal economies. But he has botched the details, especially by pushing one solution—individual property titles—for all different kinds of poor people in all different kinds of poor places. <BR/>From the field, the verdicts are rolling in: In some corners of the world, the land-titling programs inspired by de Soto's work are proving merely ineffective. In other places, they are showing themselves to be downright harmful to the poor people they set out to help. . . .<BR/>It turns out that titling is more useful to elite and middle-income groups who can afford to bother with financial leverage, risk, and real estate markets. For very poor squatters in the inner city—who care most about day-to-day survival, direct access to livelihood, and keeping costs down—titles make comparatively little sense. These poorer groups either fall prey to eviction or they sell out, assuming they'll find some other affordable pocket of informality that they can settle into. . . ."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1129749659455764622005-10-19T12:20:00.000-07:002005-10-19T12:20:00.000-07:00@ simon neville, re: the post-tsumani land grab: D...@ simon neville, re: the post-tsumani land grab: Dont think that the law wasnt set up to allow the land grab, because it probably was, or else why the registration date?<BR/><BR/>He also points out the biggest problem (to which Rob Perkins gives one good solution) to <I>any</I> proposal dealing with legal systems: ignorance, or education.<BR/>What's the saying? "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime".<BR/>Education is the one investment that is an all but absolute lock for a good return (as Republicans keep telling us each time they raise tuition and slash aid at universities, or refuse to pay more local taxes for education).<BR/><BR/>I think that perhaps refering to the problem as one of "property" is the wrong way of looking at it. Better, perhaps, to refer to it as a problem of "resources". This gets rid of the "my land, my choice" school of thinking, and directs towards solutions of how best to use what you've got.daveawayfromhomehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06237313399294302353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1129735131047615192005-10-19T08:18:00.000-07:002005-10-19T08:18:00.000-07:00The property-rights (and indeed proper contract la...The property-rights (and indeed proper contract law) issue, comes up in virtually every piece on developing economies in <A HREF="http://www.economist.com" REL="nofollow"><I>The Economist</I></A>, citing the historic use of land as collateral.<BR/><BR/>Indeed far from beign a counter-example, the case of Zimbabwe shows what happens when the system contract/rights is torn up by expropriation - why put sweat equity into what is “easy come, easy go“?Steve Gilhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03622573187942388226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1129733651759601312005-10-19T07:54:00.000-07:002005-10-19T07:54:00.000-07:00There's ownership of land, and then there's owners...There's ownership of land, and then there's ownership of skills. LDS Philanthropy runs a program called the "Perpetual Education Fund", in which student loans for vocational schools are offered to Church members in good standing. The program is only offered to the hyper-poor in developing countries. Repaid loans are then paid out to students in the next class, for the same thing. I don't know the repayment rate. <BR/><BR/>The return on that sort of investment is phenomenal; recipients of the loans can quadruple their own income, just by going to school, and in just two years. <BR/><BR/>While the program from that Church is limited to its own members, modeled as it is after a previous "perpetual emigration fund" which was also limited to members, I wonder if the model of lending might be useful outside the Church context.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1129728788594945152005-10-19T06:33:00.000-07:002005-10-19T06:33:00.000-07:00Palliard, your example is unfortunately misinform...Palliard,<BR/> your example is unfortunately misinformed.Unfortunately it was not the same farmers (ignorant cronies instead), and there is the small problem of hyperinflation and lack of essential inputs to cope with. Try again.reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06594313655855683716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1129726229701656932005-10-19T05:50:00.000-07:002005-10-19T05:50:00.000-07:00A good example of why this is unlikely to work is ...A good example of why this is unlikely to work is to look at the land redistribution that took place in Zimbabwe a few years back. Large corporate farms were taken away from their post-colonial owners, and divvied up into a lot of smaller landholdings.<BR/><BR/>Result: a net food exporter became a net food importer, and people started starving.<BR/><BR/>Why? Same land, same farmers... what's the difference?<BR/><BR/>I would chalk it up to an unwillingness to work cooperatively. I'm not a big fan of hierarchies generally, but they do have the advantage of being efficient at utilizing resources.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1129709780984441772005-10-19T01:16:00.000-07:002005-10-19T01:16:00.000-07:00I can remember studies back in the 1970s that sugg...I can remember studies back in the 1970s that suggested that inherited wealth disappeared within a few generations. Of course that was then. Since then wealth concentration has increased enormously and there is a big danger that the current explosion of debt will exacerbate the problem. I would be very interested what a rerun of these studies would show.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, if we look at history, increasing concentrations of wealth and power lead eventually to bloody revolution. Often the land rights that you mention are the result of revolutions not the way of avoiding them. Some Anglo-Saxon colonies avoided this fate historically by killing off the aboriginal inhabitants (either directly or via introduced diseases) and rationing the available land. Unfortunately, this trick only works once.<BR/><BR/>I'm all for what you are proposing but perhaps the dangers and opportunities can be well illustrated by comparing what happened in Poland and Czeckoslovakia as against the Soviet Union and to a lesser extent East Germany. In Poland and Czeckoslovakia State assets were divided amongst the population providing widespread capital that could be used to bootstrap entepeneuers. In Russia a kleptocracy claimed them with disastrous consequences. In East Germany they were taken over by the West with the result that "East Germany became a nation of renters and employees with no capital of their own". Much of East Germany is slowly being depopulated as a consequence and East Germany is an enormous drain on Germany as a whole.<BR/><BR/>My point is that it depends largely where you start from and long term there is no guarantee that it will lead to a healthy society. These institutional arrangements are necessary but not sufficient unfortunately.reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06594313655855683716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1129696933904473482005-10-18T21:42:00.000-07:002005-10-18T21:42:00.000-07:00An interesting parallel problem:Squatters creating...An interesting parallel problem:<BR/><BR/>Squatters creating illegal but vibrant "suburbs" on the edge of megalopolises. There's a discussion here which mentions De Soto's work:<BR/> http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003639.html<BR/><BR/>StefanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1129696338628532782005-10-18T21:32:00.000-07:002005-10-18T21:32:00.000-07:00David , you have touched upon a very good point, b...David , you have touched upon a very good point, but only scratched the surface of this complex problem, (which is way to long for me to get into!) but a couple of points.<BR/><BR/> For those who wish to know more about micro-loans, Grameen Bank of Bangladesh is one of the most successful of its kind (a 95%+ repayment rate) and I agree with David about it being one of the best hopes to raise people out of poverty. <BR/><BR/> As for the land issue, the biggest hurdles are education and local administration. On the education side, many poor farmers are illiterate or close too. They don’t know how to register their lands and can’t read or understand government proclamations on land issues.<BR/>On the administration side, most well do families have at least one member in government service, so they usually have the inside track on land laws and will file before local lands owners can.<BR/> Case in point after the tsunami hit Thailand many villages were wiped out. The federal government issued a directive that local residents should register their land holdings by a certain date, after that their land would be open for public bids. What happened was local provincial and district level administrators did not advertise this directive as ordered or when they did, the leaflets where confusing and unclear. When the date passed relatives of these administrators, bought up massive chunks of land and villages that had resided on that land for over a 100 years were kicked off because they didn’t know where, how or when to register their land. The laws were there, but subverted.<BR/><BR/>Final point: The Shoe/Clothing/Toy etc… factory overseas, this is were David’s “Age of Amateurs” come in. CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) is the newest catch phrase, which pretty much means consumer/amateur power. Every time a cry is raised, things change because the consumer forces the company too. With the Age of Information upon us, workers owning camera phones (they are common and cheap here in Asia) can upload pictures at the nearest internet café and put their plight before the world!! This advent of the consumer caring how their product was produced is a great boon for workers and the environment around the globe. Some say we are not doing enough, I say small steps, small steps will get us there.<BR/><BR/>I could ramble on forever, but I will leave it at that.<BR/><BR/>Simon NevilleAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com