Herders response to acute land pressure under changing property rights: some insights from Kajiado District, Kenya

2005 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
JANE KABUBO-MARIARA
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Common Property ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Probit Regression ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Regression Framework ◽  
Education Levels ◽  
And Migration ◽  
Land Pressure

This paper examines the response of herders to increased shortage and degradation of land in an arid and semi-arid land setting in Kenya, under changing property right regimes using both survey and secondary data. We argue that the responses adopted are livelihood strategies to improve herder's welfare. We explore the determinants of three different strategies: crop cultivation, investment in land improvements, and migration with livestock. We employ the probit regression framework to explain each strategy. The main findings of the study are that private property rights, educational attainment, and availability of water are major determinants of the three strategies. We recommend policies that favour privatization of existing common property resources, improve education levels, and increase supply of water in the district.

The Neoliberal State

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Harvey
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Common Property ◽  
Private Property ◽  
The State ◽  
Free Markets ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Role Of The State ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Political Form

The role of the state in neoliberal theory is reasonably easy to define. The practice of neoliberalization has, however, evolved in such a way as to depart significantly from the template that theory provides. The somewhat chaotic evolution and uneven geographical development of state institutions, powers, and functions over the last thirty years suggests, furthermore, that the neoliberal state may be an unstable and contradictory political form. According to theory, the neoliberal state should favour strong individual private property rights, the rule of law, and the institutions of freely functioning markets and free trade. These are the institutional arrangements considered essential to guarantee individual freedoms. The legal framework is that of freely negotiated contractual obligations between juridical individuals in the marketplace. The sanctity of contracts and the individual right to freedom of action, expression, and choice must be protected. The state must therefore use its monopoly of the means of violence to preserve these freedoms at all costs. By extension, the freedom of businesses and corporations (legally regarded as individuals) to operate within this institutional framework of free markets and free trade is regarded as a fundamental good. Private enterprise and entrepreneurial initiative are seen as the keys to innovation and wealth creation. Intellectual property rights are protected (for example through patents) so as to encourage technological changes. Continuous increases in productivity should then deliver higher living standards to everyone. Under the assumption that ‘a rising tide lifts all boats’, or of ‘trickle down’, neoliberal theory holds that the elimination of poverty (both domestically and worldwide) can best be secured through free markets and free trade. Neoliberals are particularly assiduous in seeking the privatization of assets. The absence of clear private property rights––as in many developing countries––is seen as one of the greatest of all institutional barriers to economic development and the improvement of human welfare. Enclosure and the assignment of private property rights is considered the best way to protect against the socalled ‘tragedy of the commons’ (the tendency for individuals to irresponsibly super-exploit common property resources such as land and water).

Commons Sense: Common Property Rights, Efficiency, and Institutional Change

1998 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Clark
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Institutional Change ◽  
Common Property ◽  
Market Failure ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Relative Prices ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Land Owners ◽  
The Rich

Common property rights were widespread in English agriculture for at least 600 years. Since privatizing common fields allegedly produced huge profits in the eighteenth century, common land owners seemingly squandered 15 percent of potential income for generations. Ingenious explanations have been produced for this market failure. This article argues for a simple, brutal resolution. Common fields survived because enclosure was generally unprofitable before 1750, when changing relative prices made private property rights marginally more efficient. Then people responded quickly to modest profits. The rich gains from enclosure existed only in the imaginings of wild-eyed eighteenth century agrarian reformers.

LAND PLOT AS AN OBJECT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vyacheslav Vovk
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Land Management ◽  
Land Reform ◽  
Essential Role ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Rich Country ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Land Plot ◽  
Government Supervision

Russia is a resource-rich country, and great changes are being made today in order that land and its resources are used for the benefit of any citizen of our state. Under the circumstances government supervision (control) over the optimal use of territories gets the essential role. The rights that are contained in land reform give owners, landowners, land users, and employers extensive powers concerning independent land management.

Konsep Distribusi Pendapatan Dalam Islam

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-97
Author(s):  
Moh. Ah. Subhan ZA
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Wealth Distribution ◽  
The State ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Job Opportunities ◽  
The Rich ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Distribution Of Income

The main problem of social life in the community is about how to make the allocation and distribution of income well. Inequality and poverty basically arise not because of the difference of anyone’s strength and weakness in getting livelihood, but because of inappropriate distribution mechanism. With the result that wealth treasure just turns on the rich wealthy, which is in turn, results in the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.Therefore, a discussion on distribution becomes main focus of theory of Islamic economics. Moreover, the discussion of the distribution is not only related to economic issues, but also social and political aspects. On the other side, the economic vision of Islam gives priority to the guarantee of the fulfillment of a better life. Islam emphasizes distributive justice and encloses, in its system, a program for the redistribution of wealth and prosperity, so that each individual is guaranteed with a respectable and friendly standard of living. Islam recognizes private property rights, but the private property rights must be properly distributed. The personal property is used for self and family livelihood, for investment of the working capital, so that it can provide job opportunities for others, for help of the others through zakat, infaq, and shodaqoh. In this way, the wealth not only rotates on the rich, bringing on gap in social life.The problem of wealth distribution is closely related to the welfare of society. Therefore, the state has a duty to regulate the distribution of income in order that the distribution can be fair and reaches appropriate target. The state could at least attempt it by optimizing the role of BAZ (Badan Amil Zakat) and LAZ (Lembaga Amil Zakat) which has all this time been slack. If BAZ and LAZ can be optimized, author believes that inequality and poverty over time will vanish. This is because the majority of Indonesia's population is Muslim.

Libertarianisms

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Halliday
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Classical Liberal ◽  
Inherited Wealth ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
The Common

This chapter considers various arguments both for and against taxing inherited wealth, each of these being associated with some or other type of libertarian outlook. Libertarianism in the Lockean guises (‘left’ and ‘right’ varieties) is distinguished from its classical liberal alternative, which downplays the Lockean emphasis on private property rights in favour of a more defeasible case for small government and low taxation. These different perspectives generate a variety of quite different arguments about inheritance, some more persuasive than others. Some attention is paid to the common claim that inheritance taxes ‘punish’ virtue and generosity. It is then argued that a Rignano scheme may be particularly attractive in light of certain left-libertarian commitments and as a way of accommodating a classical liberal concern about perpetual savings.

Incommensurable preferences in contingent valuation: the case of Natura 2000 Network in Finland

2000 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 260-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. REKOLA ◽  
E. POUTA ◽  
J. KUULUVAINEN ◽  
O. TAHVONEN ◽  
C.-Z. LI
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Contingent Valuation ◽  
Environmental Ethics ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Natura 2000 ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Lexicographic Preferences ◽  
Preference Construction ◽  
Policy Decision Making

In the literature of contingent valuation, a rights-based system of environmental ethics claiming that natural objects have absolute rights, has frequently been regarded as the main reason for incommensurability, i.e. for citizens’ inability to find a common measure according to which all values could be ranked. In a study of 2400 Finns aged between 18 and 70, we tested whether a respondent's commitment to guaranteeing private property rights could be a reason for incommensurability beyond the respondent's possible commitment to absolute nature rights. It was found that incommensurability, modelled with lexicographic preferences, was attributable more often to private property rights than to nature rights. However, Finnish respondents who had lexicographic preferences for nature rights based their choice more often on an ethical judgement, whereas lexicographic preferences for property rights could rather be explained with an ambivalent preference construction. Lexicographic preferences for nature rights increased the willingness to pay for conservation, while lexicographic preferences for property rights decreased it. The result, which was predicted by the theory, supported the validity of incommensurability measurement. The study therefore indicates that several reasons for incommensurable preferences may exist and that it is possible to measure these reasons in contingent valuation surveys in order to judge the validity of the welfare measures in environmental policy decision-making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document