The issue of the relationship between private property and common property has engaged both legal and economic scholars in a long series of controversies over the meaning, the sequence of development, and the superiority of private vs. common property. The issues debated relate to the efficiency, equity and sustainability of private property as contrasted to common property. Many scholars think of contemporary examples of common property as remnants of the past, likely to disappear during the twenty-first century. Recent research, however, has challenged the presumption that private property is necessarily superior to common property.
Keywords: Private property, common property, open access regimes.
References: [1] Grossi, Paolo (1981), An Alternative to Private Property; Collective Property in the Juridical Consciousness of the Nineteenth Century, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.[2] Maine, Henry Sumner (1963), Ancient Law: Its Connection with the Early History of Society and its Relation to Modern Ideas; With Introduction and Notes by Frederick Pollack, Boston: Beacon Press (reprint of 1861 ed.), p. 252.[3] North, Douglass C. and Robert Paul Thomas (1976), The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History, London: Cambridge University Press.[4] North, C. Douglass, L. Terry Anderson, and J. Peter Hill (1983), Growth and Welfare in the American Past: A New Economic History, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.[5] W.P. Welch, “The political feasibility of full ownership property rights: The cases of pollution and fisheries”, Policy Sciences, (1983), 16, 165-80.[6] Ostrom, Vincent, The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration, 3rd ed., Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press (2008).[7] North, C. Douglass, Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance, New York: Cambridge University Press (1990).[8] Elinor Ostrom and Charlotte Hess, Private and Common Property Rights, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, 29/11/2007, https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=sul (truy cập lần cuối: 31/03/2019).[9] Ciriacy-Wantrup, V. Siegfried and C. Richard. Bishop (1975), “Common property” as a concept in natural resource policy, Natural Resources Journal, 15, 713-727.[10] Báo Pháp luật (điện tử): https://plo.vn/thoi-su/dai-bieu-lo-dan-het-duoc-tu-do-tam-bien-o-phu-quoc-774398.html (truy cập lần cuối: 05/04/2019).[11] Báo Tuổi Trẻ (điện tử): https://tuoitre.vn/khong-the-chap-nhan-tinh-trang-lay-bien-lam-cua-rieng-2018110711421466.htm (truy cập lần cuối: 05/04/2019.[12] Dales, H. John (1968), Pollution, Property, and Prices: An Essay in Policy-Making and Economics, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.[13] Higgs, Robert (1996), “Legally induced technical regress in the Washington salmon fishery”, in L. J. Alston, Thráinn Eggertsson, and Douglass North (eds), Empirical Studies in Institutional Change, New York: Cambridge University Press.[14] Johnson, N. Ronald and D. Gary Libecap (1982), “Contracting problems and regulation: The case of the fishery”, American Economic Review, 72, 1005-1022.[15] Wiersma, L. Lindsey (2005), “Indigenous lands as cultural property: A new approach to indigenous land claims”, Duke Law Journal, 54, 1061-1088.[16] Ostrom, Vincent and Elinor Ostrom (1977), “A theory for institutional analysis of common pool problems”, in Garrett Hardin and John Baden (eds), Managing the Commons, San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman, pp. 157-172.[17] Ostrom, Elinor, Roy Gardner, and James M. Walker (1994), Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.[18] Feeny, David, Fikret Berkes, Bonnie J. McCay, and James M. Acheson (1990), “The tragedy of the commons: Twenty-two years later”, Human Ecology, 18, 1-19.[19] Bromley, Daniel W. (1992), “The commons, common property, and environmental policy”, 2 Environmental and Resource Economics, 1-17.[20] Singh, Katar (1994), Managing Common Pool Resources: Principles and Case Studies, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. [21] Singh, Katar and Vishwa Ballabh (1996), Cooperative Management of Natural Resources, New Delhi: Sage.[22] Blomquist, William and Elinor Ostrom (1985), “Institutional capacity and the resolution of a commons dilemma”, Policy Studies Review, 5, 383-393.[23] Lueck, Dean (1995), “The rule of first possession and the design of the law”, Journal of Law and Economics, 38, 393-436.[24] Ghoshal, Sumantra and Peter Moran (1996), “Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory”, Academy of Management Review, 21, 13-47.[25] Putterman, Louis (1995), Markets, hierarchies, and information: On a paradox in the economics of organization”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 26, 373-390.[26] Seabright, Paul (1993), “Managing local commons: Theoretical issues in incentive design”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7, 113-134.
The Position and the Development Trends Private Property and Common Property