scholarly journals Tropical Deforestation: Can Property Rights Stem the Tide?

SURG Journal ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 45-54
Author(s):  
Daniel Bayley
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Tropical Forests ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Free Market ◽  
Tropical Deforestation ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Effective Form ◽  
Tropical Forest Management ◽  
Market Environmentalism

In this report the property right structures surrounding tropical forest management are analyzed with a specific case study presented on tropical forests in Honduras. In order to adequately understand the set of property rights in place surrounding tropical forests, the applicable sets of property rights are laid out and explained (private, common, state, and open access). It is argued that the current property rights regimes in place surrounding tropical forests are inadequate and are the issue leading to high levels of deforestation. Conflicts and controversies surrounding the issue are presented for a counterargument and separate view of the issue. It was found that the current property rights regime in Honduras is inadequate for effective resource management as it lacks enforceability along with structure and is the prominent issue surrounding tropical deforestation. Private property rights were the most effective form of property rights found for maintaining natural resources, and it is therefore recommended that private ownership be instilled upon tropical forests to reduce the rate of deforestation. Free Market Environmentalism (FME) is offered as a solution to the current methodology for the management of tropical forests, as it advocates for private ownership and an enforceable set of rights. Therefore, it is recommended that a private property rights regime following the FME methodology replace existing state property rights in order to stem the tide of tropical deforestation.

scholarly journals Privatization in economic theory

2007 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maja Drakic
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Economic System ◽  
Market Economy ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Choice Theory ◽  
Free Market ◽  
Mass Scale ◽  
Equilibrium Models ◽  
Dominant Form ◽  
Private Property Rights

In reality privatization has never occurred according to the handbook rules of ordinary market transactions. Not even in advanced market economies can privatization transactions be described by the Walrasian or Arrowian, or Leontiefian equilibrium models, or by the equilibrium models of the game theory. In these economies transactions of privatization take place in a fairly organic way ? which means that those are driven by the dominance of private property rights and in a market economy. But despite this fact Western privatization also some peculiar features as compared to ordinary company takeovers, since the state as the seller may pursue non ? economic goals. Changes in the dominant form of property change positions and status of many individuals and groups in the society. That?s why privatization can even less be explained by ordinary market mechanisms in transition countries where privatizing state-owned property have happened in a mass scale and where markets and private property rights weren't established at the time process of privatization began. In this paper I?ll discuss and analyze the phenomenon of privatization in context of different economic theories arguing that empirical results go in favor of the public choice theory (Buchanan, 1978), theory of "economic constitution" (Brennan and Buchanan 1985), (Buchanan and Tullock, 1989), and theory of "collective action" (Olson, 1982). These theories argues that transition from one economic system into another, for example transition from collectivistic, socialistic system into capitalism and free market economy with dominant private property, will not happen through isolated changes of only few economic institutions, no matter how deep that changes would be. In other words privatization can not give results if it's not followed by comprehensive change of economic system because privatized companied wouldn't be able to operate in old environment.

scholarly journals Applying and assessing free market environmentalism to the Democratic Republic of Congo’s coltan resources: Challenges and possibilities

SURG Journal ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-16
Author(s):  
Benjamin Baena ◽  
Amy Bronson ◽  
Tobias Jones ◽  
Lindsey Champaigne
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
Free Market ◽  
Resource Curse ◽  
Effective Property ◽  
Environmental Problems ◽  
Economic Thought ◽  
Individual Property ◽  
Market Environmentalism

Coltan is the commonly used term for tantalum, a metal used in electronics, when sourced from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). This article considers that a “resource curse,” where a resource-rich country paradoxically experiences low social and economic development, is occurring in the DRC with respect to this mineral. The school of economic thought known as free market environmentalism broadly prescribes free markets, individual property rights, and common-law liability as the incentives to reduce environmental problems. While it is a less-common and sometimes controversial perspective on solving environmental problems, an analysis of a free market environmentalist perspective of coltan mining in the DRC provides alternative perspectives on solving a “resource curse,” such as effective property rights as put forward by Moriss (2009). Considering the practicality of implementing free market environmentalist principles in a war-torn country with weak governance, this article theorizes that the Congolese government could respond to the recent Congo Conflict Minerals Act within the American Dodd-Frank Act (2010) by implementing licenses to mine coltan resources that closely resemble private property rights, drawing on Pearse (1988), in areas of the DRC less affected by conflict. Keywords: Democratic Republic of Congo; coltan; tantalum; mining; free market environmentalism; property rights (privatization of)

scholarly journals Too many boats chasing too few fish: The collapse of the Atlantic groundfish fishery and the avoidance of future collapses through free market environmentalism

SURG Journal ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-17
Author(s):  
Jacquelyn Rutherford
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Atlantic Cod ◽  
Free Market ◽  
Fish Stocks ◽  
Individual Transferable Quotas ◽  
Viable Solution ◽  
Cod Fisheries ◽  
Market Environmentalism ◽  
Groundfish Fishery

On July 2, 1992 Canada’s fisheries minister banned cod fishing off the northeast coast of Newfoundland and off the southern coast of Labrador. Overestimated cod stocks creating exaggerated Total Allowable Catches, coupled with increased fishing capacity, lead to the depletion of the Atlantic cod fisheries. This crisis occurred in the context of strong government policy and management. The Atlantic cod and groundfish fisheries have yet to recover from this travesty of mismanagement. The state of the world’s fisheries faces the same dismal fate as the Atlantic groundfish fishery, suffering from what has become known as the tragedy of the commons. Establishing private property rights using methods such as individual transferable quotas is occurring in several parts of the world to avoid the tragedy of depleted fish stocks. Well defined property rights, through the implementation of individual transferable quotas, ensure that fisheries internalize the cost and benefits of management decisions. Individual transferable fishing quotas have proven effective to increase conservation efforts and reduce overcapacity, which is often produced with increased legislation. Individual transferable quotas are not only a viable solution for reducing overfishing and preventing stock collapses, but the best solution available.

scholarly journals Involuntary termination of private property rights under the civil legislation of Ukraine

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (27) ◽  
pp. 62-71
Author(s):  
Oleksandr Mykhailov ◽  
Anna Hryb ◽  
Anastasiia Riaboshapchenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Human Rights Protection

The article investigates theoretical and practical problems of civil regulation of involuntary termination of private property rights. Private ownership is one of the essential human rights. That is why it is extremely important to provide its appropriate protection. It is especially important in terms of current Ukrainian realities in the context of continuous hostilities, the temporary occupation of part of the country's territory, rapid economic reforms aimed at bringing the Ukrainian economy closer to the standards of the European Union. The involuntary termination of private property right should be an exception used in very rare cases, established by law. Considering this, the article analyzes established by Ukrainian legislation cases of involuntary termination of private ownership from the point of view of human rights protection. Some imperfections in the legal regulation of involuntary termination of private property are revealed and ways of improvement of the current state are suggested. It is concluded that involuntary termination of private ownership takes place in a limited number of cases, but it does not directly follow from Art. 346 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. It was offered to supply Art. 346 of the Civil Code of Ukraine with the provision that ownership shall be terminated by compulsory order only on the grounds and in the manner provided by the Civil Code and the Laws of Ukraine.

scholarly journals Bottled water and groundwater in Ontario: Can free market environmentalism resolve the emerging conflicts?

SURG Journal ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Chemeris ◽  
Kai Bruce ◽  
Krista Kapitan ◽  
Lauren Sirrs
Keyword(s):  
Groundwater Management ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Free Market ◽  
Groundwater Resources ◽  
Allocation Mechanism ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Current Water ◽  
The Common ◽  
Market Environmentalism ◽  
Resource Allocation Mechanism

Nestlé Waters’s recent purchase of a well and water-taking rights in the Township of Centre Wellington, Ontario, has garnered national and international attention, raising concerns about how groundwater resources should be managed. In this paper, we explore free market environmentalism as a way to resolve groundwater management and water-takings issues in Ontario. Controversy over groundwater resources and their use, as illustrated by the recent case in Ontario, has become more prevalent globally as concerns about groundwater quality and scarcity develop. Our results suggest that, in theory, the incorporation of private property rights and the common law principle of riparian rights into provincial groundwater allocation mechanisms has the potential to resolve the emerging conflicts in Ontario. However, our analysis reveals that the current level of politicization in Ontario’s water allocation and pricing systems, combined with the current lack of adequate monitoring and documentation of groundwater use, are significant barriers to implementing a resource allocation mechanism for groundwater based on the principles of private ownership and riparian rights. We address these limitations to gain a deeper understanding the implications of the current water-takings system in Ontario, and conclude that these limitations deserve greater social and political attention if these controversies are to be resolved. While free market environmentalism has solutions to offer to Ontario’s groundwater management issue, the current political and institutional approaches to groundwater allocation and pricing in Ontario do not allow for them to be fully applied.

The Ethics of Privatization

1995 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Lehmann
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Free Market ◽  
Current System ◽  
Public Lands ◽  
Individual Freedom ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Collective Management ◽  
Public Land Management ◽  
The Cost

Insofar as arguments for privatization can be read as appealing to general ethical conceptions, they acquire greater depth and, perhaps, respectability. The argument from productivity suggests a rule-form of preference utilitarianism: by changing institutions (in this case, by substituting private property rights for collective management of public lands), we’ll promote people’s welfare by enabling them better to satisfy their desires. But we can also glimpse in the recommended institution of private property rights a more Kantian commitment: where I can acquire what’s yours only with your willing consent (and generally in exchange for something of mine you value more), I can’t treat you simply as a means, at least in certain respects. However, in my view, such appeals do little to advance the argument for privatization; on the contrary, they reveal weaknesses in it. The property rights recommended by privatization advocates provide for individual freedom but not for its wise use. They do not help people to treat humanity in their own persons as an end or to form desires worth satisfying. There is an opening here for arguing that privatization is a bad idea, not because the current system, despite appearances, is relatively efficient or the cost of dismantling it is too great, but because what we’d get is inferior in a more basic sense to what we now have. Public land management promises greater protection of our natural and cultural heritage than the market—at least if we can resist the seductive suggestion that it be marketized, i.e., that we aim to allocate the resources of public lands as would an ideal market. Furthermore, the opportunity to define and defend values in public debate rather than simply buying what we happen to prefer (and can afford) is one we should, in our own interests, preserve. It is primarily on such grounds that I oppose privatizing public lands. To get this argument off the ground, we must allow that what I’m interested in can differ from what’s in my interest. I shall spend much of this chapter meeting objections to such a distinction and arguing that the free market can’t be expected to help people take an interest in what’s in their interest.

Property in the Kibbutz: Old and New

2018 ◽  
pp. 58-78
Author(s):  
Abraham Bell ◽  
Gideon Parchomovsky ◽  
Benjamin Weitz
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Free Market ◽  
Unique Property ◽  
Free Market Economy ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
System P ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
Property Regime ◽  
Israeli Kibbutz

In this chapter, we discuss the unique property norms that emerged within the Israeli kibbutz and the challenges to which they gave rise. Originally, the prevailing property regime in kibbutzim reflected a deep commitment to socialist ideology. All property was owned by the collective and individual members only held licences or permits to use kibbutz property. With time, as Israeli society has moved towards a free market economy and following a series of financial crises, most kibbutzim have abandoned the strict ban on private property and have gradually gravitated towards a system of private property rights. This transition has given rise to intricate legal challenges. It forced kibbutzim to adopt a system of allocating private property rights to their members in assets and has required Israeli courts to grapple with unique property arrangements that existed solely within kibbutzim and effectuate them within the formal legal system.

Free-Market Energy

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 647-655
Author(s):  
Alexander M. Schaefer ◽  
Walter E. Block
Keyword(s):  
Resource Allocation ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Energy Policy ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Free Market ◽  
Department Of Energy ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Laissez Faire

There should be no governmental energy policy, nor any department of energy, for that matter. All decisions concerning fuel, up to and including nuclear power, should be based on private property rights and the tenets of laissez faire capitalism. This would assure the proper assumption of risk and ideal resource allocation.

scholarly journals 'I have a patent lawyer on my payroll': Intellect v intellectual property rights- battle over the cultural commons

2004 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-88
Author(s):  
James Arvanitakis
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Free Market ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Cultural Sphere ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
Cultural Commons

Over the last 20-years, markets come to dominate the way 'resources' are managed. The expansion of the market doctrine has at its core the belief that the apporpiate private property rights are the best way to promote innovation and protect freedoms. The scramble over the private property rights is now well entrenched in the intellectual property arena, with countless examples of patents entering areas that once seemed inconceivable. Thi article moves from Bollier's (2002) disucssion of the concept to argue that intellect, rather than being commodity that is promoted by private property rights is rather a commons— specifically a 'cultural commons'. As such, the process of commodification turn intellect into intellectual property—limiting availability. As a commons, if intellect is to be prmoted, it must be open and shared in the public sphere. In contrast to the ongoing commodification of all aspects of life, social movements and academics are begining to rediscover the commons. This rediscovery now takes the battle between the dominant forces of free market fundamentalism and those who oppose them, into the cultural sphere.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document