Legitimation of Private Property in the Means of Production in Ukraine

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 64-87
Author(s):  
Volodymyr Reznik ◽  
Oleksandr Reznik
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
Psychological Adaptation ◽  
Social Recognition ◽  
Private Enterprises ◽  
Private Land ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Basic Hypothesis ◽  
Ideological Attitudes ◽  
Means Of Production

This article explores the sources of legitimacy of private property in the means of production in Ukraine. The conceptualization of legitimacy of private property was made by analyzing theoretical approaches to the study of the foundations of private property relations in Western countries. The application of these approaches tests economic utilitarian, psychological, and sociocultural explanations of legitimacy of large and small private enterprises and private land in the process of activation of post-communist transition of Ukrainian society. The basic hypothesis was that the process of legitimation of private property in the means of production proceeds by uniting utilitarian and psychological adaptation with sociocultural agreement of ideological attitudes. This hypothesis was verified with the help of created legitimacy indices by comparison of linear regressions and data of the Institute of Sociology of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of Ukraine for 2013 and 2017. The results indicate that the hypothesis has been held true only concerning legitimacy of small private enterprises. They have acquired a moderate extent of legitimacy owing to the fact that besides the factors of adaptation, social recognition has increased at the expense of people who support the multiparty system and the liberal and mixed methods of regulation of the economy. In contrast, the existence of large private enterprises and private land has not acquired the corresponding sociocultural foundation.

scholarly journals Public versus private land use controls in England and the USA

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Walsh
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Private Land ◽  
Restrictive Covenants ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Land Use Controls

Purpose This paper aims to compare the law with regard to private property rights and restrictions and public controls in England and the USA, and the theoretical debates that surround them, to understand whether the private land use controls of nuisance and restrictive covenants could have a greater role to play or the public law system of planning is the best way to manage land. Design/methodology/approach This paper starts by summarising and comparing, firstly, the private laws of nuisance and restrictive covenants and then laws relating public planning, zoning and takings in England and the USA. It then reviews theoretical approaches taken in both jurisdictions to land use restrictions. Findings The paper concludes that private land use restrictions can only play a limited role in land management in England. Scarcity and cost of available housing necessitate a mechanism by which the state can intervene to remove or modify restrictions to enable alteration and development. The structure of freehold ownership in England and the low take-up of Commonhold as an alternative tenure mean that expansion in the use of private land use restrictions to control the use of land is unfeasible. Originality/value The value of this paper is that it seeks to provide insight into the contested relationship between private and public law and the relationship between property law and planning.

HISTORICAL STAGES OF FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNAL CONTROL

2021 ◽  
Vol 296 (4) ◽  
pp. 14-20
Author(s):  
AnnА KOZACHENKO ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Internal Control ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Internal Audit ◽  
Economic Life ◽  
Capitalist System ◽  
Historical Aspect ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
History Of ◽  
Economic Formation ◽  
Means Of Production

The article highlights the views of scientists on the allocation of periods (stages) in the history of internal control, which differ in the following features: the emergence and development of socio – economic relations that existed at different times; diversification of objects and subjects of control; complicating the tasks of control over the different levels of development of productive forces and equipment of each society; specific methodological techniques. Thus, the first manifestations of control are observed during the period of primitive communal system. The period of slavery is considered the stage of the emergence of internal control. Characteristic of this period was physical coercion to work. In the period of the feudal system, the peculiarities of the development of socio-economic formation of European states are the distinction between external and internal audit, and accounting registers to reflect the facts of economic life, which served for entries in the accounts of the General Ledger. In addition, control activities were manifested in the movement of credit and settlement transactions between buyers, in settlements between buyers and banks, in production processes and private ownership of the means of production. The capitalist system of production did not require many special control bodies, and its functions were carried out directly by the owners of the means of production. The basis of capitalism was the private property of the bourgeoisie on the means of production, but not on the worker, who at that time received more freedom. It was during the communist formation that thorough work was carried out on the methodological support of internal economic control, but its active development began after the declaration of independence of Ukraine, by borrowing the foundations in foreign countries. Thus, the periodization presented in the article helps to trace the historical aspect of the development and formation of internal control as a control system as a whole, in a certain period of time in which.

scholarly journals Fascism: Left, Right, or Neither

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allen Gindler
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
The Political ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Individual Freedom ◽  
Proper Place ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Wealth Redistribution ◽  
Political Spectrum ◽  
The Right ◽  
Means Of Production

The article discusses fascism's place on the political spectrum. At present, there is no consensus among political scientists and economists on that issue, as it has been extraordinarily politicized and distorted during ideological struggles among various currents of socialism. From the very beginning, fascism was depicted by Marxists as belonging to the Right, while Fascists themselves wanted to build a society that transcends the Left-Right paradigm. However, few voices in academia have noted that practical implementation of the fascists’ ideas, inherited from the works of revolutionary and national syndicalists, exhibited predominantly leftist characteristics.The ambiguity of placing fascism in its proper place on the political spectrum can be confidently resolved by applying three primary factors that govern political spectrum polarization: attitude to private property, scope of individual freedom, and degree of wealth redistribution. The article argues that fascism is a particular current of non-Marxian socialism that utilized collectivization of consciousness and wealth redistribution as the main paths toward socialism rather than outright expropriation of private property or means of production. Simultaneously, it is acknowledged that private property rights were inhibited by the fascist state, even though de jure they were permitted.The fascist ideal of the “alternate way” had a logical inconsistency that produced an unstable equilibrium between labor and capital as well as between the man and the state. The politico-economic structure predictably collapsed to the left in the course of building a new society. Therefore, fascism could be correctly called the Right of the Left.

Are economic instruments the saviour for biodiversity on private land?

2001 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 223 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Gibbons ◽  
S. V Briggs ◽  
J. M. Shields
Keyword(s):  
Threatened Species ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Public Land ◽  
Farm Income ◽  
Private Land ◽  
Economic Instruments ◽  
Species Lists ◽  
Drought Relief ◽  
Head Of Government

IT is the year 2020. Farmers have broken the record for the number of threatened species recorded on private property in a single year. Five species of woodland bird are removed from threatened species lists. The area of private land managed for biodiversity now exceeds the area of public land managed for biodiversity. Farm income from biodiversity is greater than wheat. The Biodiversity Growers Association calls for the environment levy on Australian taxpayers to be increased. Drought relief payments are at an all time low. Retiring head of government conservation agency described as "visionary" by farmers' representatives.

The State—Local Regulatory Nexus in US Growth Management: Claims of Property and Participation in the Localist Resistance

1994 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 425-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
T A Clark
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Regional Growth ◽  
Growth Management ◽  
Private Investment ◽  
The United States ◽  
Private Land ◽  
Local Participation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Starting Point

Influenced possibly more by volume than substance, some scholars have concluded that significant progress is being realized in state-level land-use regulation in the United States. In truth, more time must pass before a definitive evaluation of the more comprehensive efforts can be made. In this critical paper I examine the statewide growth-management legislation of the four states having tripartite (local—regional—state) administrative hierarchies: Florida, Vermont, Maine, and Georgia. There and elsewhere, numerous structural compromises have won adoption. Bold declarations of regulatory intent are found here often to be wrapped around ambiguous and easily subverted administrative mechanisms and standards. With prima facie evidence of significant structural shortcomings in hand, I then restore focus on the founding debates in search of a synthesis that might be more supportive of regional growth management. Using the theory of local autonomy as a starting point, I disentangle the normative foundations of the Liberal ethic of local participation and ‘control’, and of private rights in property. The centralization of growth management is seen by its proponents as a means to regionalize the ‘public interest’ in land use, positing a new and more expansive norm defining the public's interest in private property. Opponents, on the other hand, resist the public encumbrance of private land, and find in centralization a regionalized ‘public’ desirous of greater control and less amenable to private influence. In these opposing views, however, lies the possibility of less conflicted, more efficacious regional growth-management enactments. Centralization, I conclude, can actually deepen the capacity for ‘local’ participation yet at the same time extend its domain to matters of regional concern. The result can improve the capability of the local state to manage spillovers, achieve more sustainable patterns of growth, and facilitate more satisfactory templates of private investment and equity accumulation.

scholarly journals Features Of The Legal Regime Of National Parks Under The Legislation Of The Republic Of Poland

2019 ◽  
pp. 119-132
Author(s):  
N.R. Kobetska
Keyword(s):  
Nature Conservation ◽  
Real Estate ◽  
National Parks ◽  
National Park ◽  
Private Property ◽  
State Ownership ◽  
Private Land ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Problematic Issue ◽  
The Republic

The article presents an analysis of one of the oldest and most important forms of nature conservation - National Parks, and their regulation in the legislation of the Republic of Poland. The material is based on the systematic interpretation of the Law of the Republic of Poland «On Nature Conservation», the analysis of scientific literature and the identification of some problematic issues of implementation of the prescriptions of the legislation in practice. Much attention is paid to the theoretical characteristics of National Parks, their place among other forms of nature conservation in Poland, the functions they perform. The issues of creation of the National Park, the regime of management of its territory, organization and zoning of the National Park have been consistently revealed. It also analyzes the bans fixed within the National Park and ensures its protection against external adverse effects. Problematic issues are raised related to the removal of land and real estate from private owners, the achievement of a compromise between private economic interests and public environmental interests. A comparison of the basics of functioning of National Parks in Poland and Ukraine is also partly presented. The author focuses on the differences in the legal regime of national nature parks under the legislation of Ukraine and Poland. The Polish legislation does not distinguish as an independent recreational function and does not allocate separate recreational functions within the national park. At the same time, the organization of tourist routes and the provision of conditions for visiting the park is one of the tasks and a significant source of revenue for the national parks of Poland, and the number of visitors many times exceeds their number in the territories of the national parks of Ukraine. In the territory of the national parks of Poland (as in Ukraine) a combination of exclusive state ownership (in Ukraine - the property of the Ukrainian people) and private property is possible. At the same time, as in Ukraine, the most problematic issue is the acquisition of ownership of real estate (including private land) when creating or expanding the territory of national parks.

The material conditions of non-domination: Property, independence, and the means of production

2021 ◽  
pp. 147488512110506
Author(s):  
Alexander Bryan
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
Economic Independence ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Domination Property ◽  
Intuitive Judgments ◽  
Material Conditions ◽  
Republican Theory ◽  
Property Regimes ◽  
Property Regime ◽  
Means Of Production

While it is a point of agreement in contemporary republican political theory that property ownership is closely connected to freedom as non-domination, surprisingly little work has been done to elucidate the nature of this connection or the constraints on property regimes that might be required as a result. In this paper, I provide a systematic model of the boundaries within which republican property systems must sit and explore some of the wider implications that thinking of property in these terms may have for republicans. The boundaries I focus on relate to the distribution of property and the application of types of property claims over particular kinds of goods. I develop this model from those elements of non-domination most directly related to the operation of a property regime: (a) economic independence, (b) limiting material inequalities, and (c) the promotion of common goods. The limits that emerge from this analysis support intuitive judgments that animate much republican discussion of property distribution. My account diverges from much orthodox republican theory, though, in challenging the primacy of private property rights in the realization of economic independence. The value of property on republican terms can be realized without private ownership of the means of production.

Efficiency of Property and Forms of Management in Agriculture

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 185-187
Author(s):  
Xurramov Eshmamat Xudoyberdiyevich
Keyword(s):  
Market Economy ◽  
Joint Ventures ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Private Enterprises ◽  
Property Relations ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Mixed Property ◽  
Joint Property

Annotation: This article discusses the need to establish different types of ownership in agriculture in a market economy, the content of forms of entrepreneurship and property relations in agriculture, the objective need for the establishment of dehkan farms in the formation of private property in the sector, joint ventures in agriculture. Keywords: property, property reforms, public, private, private, state and mixed property, forms of entrepreneurship, private and private enterprises, joint ventures, dehkan and farm enterprises, joint property, cooperatives (companies), multi-sectoral economy.

5. Marxism

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Will Kymlicka
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Social Democracy ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
Theories Of Justice ◽  
Means Of Production ◽  
Normative Political Theory

This chapter examines Marxism as a normative political theory. It begins with a discussion of two strands of contemporary analytic Marxism’s critique of, and alternative to, liberal theories of justice. One strand rejects the very idea of justice. According to Marxists, justice seeks to mediate conflicts between individuals, whereas communism overcomes those conflicts, and hence overcomes the need for justice. The second strand shares liberalism’s emphasis on justice, but rejects the liberal belief that justice is compatible with private ownership of the means of production. Within this second strand, there is a division between those who criticize private property on the grounds of exploitation, and those who criticize it on the grounds of alienation. The chapter also explores non-Marxist conceptions of social democracy and social justice before concluding with an overview of the politics of Marxism.

scholarly journals TENSIONS BETWEEN THEORY AND HISTORY IN VON MISES’S CRITIQUE OF SOCIALISM

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanoel Boff
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Ideal Type ◽  
Clear Distinction ◽  
Means Of Production ◽  
The Ideal

ABSTRACT The article investigates the relation between praxeology and history in the critique Mises directs at the possibility of the long-term existence of a socialist commonwealth. We argue that Mises makes no clear distinction between the praxeological concept of 'private property' (associated with the possession of means of production) and the historical concept of the ideal-type 'private property' (associated to property rights - see HODGSON, 2015). The lack of precision between the theoretical and the historical concepts of private property prevents Mises’s critique from being an 'exact law', as he would have it. Finally, we show in the last section the consequences for Mises’s critique of socialism of having a historical and a praxeological concept of private property.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document