Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T23:21:37.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Property, possession and natural resource management: towards a conceptual clarification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2012

SABINE HOFFMANN
SABINE HOFFMANN*
Affiliation:
Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Dübendorf, Switzerland
*
*Email: sabine.hoffmann@eawag.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

There are few concepts that are more central to natural resource management than those of property and property rights. Given their importance, it might be expected that there would be some consensus in the economic literature about what property and property rights are. However, no such consensus seems to exist. In fact, different authors use the same terms to denote quite disparate concepts and ideas, impeding rather than advancing progress in understanding natural resource management. As but one example, there is hardly a concept that has been as fundamentally misunderstood as that of the commons. That misunderstanding notwithstanding, there is another, less familiar, more common and even more fundamental one: the persistent confusion of possession with property. This article argues that the distinction between possession and property is of particular importance for comprehending the meaning of institutional shifts from one resource management regime to another. It therefore reviews concepts central to natural resource management, by distinguishing between state, private, common property and possession on the one hand and open access on the other.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 39 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bhalla, R. S. (1992), ‘Possession: Common Sense and Law’, Ratio Juris, 5 (1): 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binswanger, H. C. (1991), Geld und Natur: Das wirtschaftliche Wachstum im Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Ökonomie und Ökologie, Stuttgart, Wien: Weitbrecht.Google Scholar
Binswanger, H. C. (1994), ‘Geld und Wachstumszwang’, in Binswanger, H. C. and Flotow, P. V. (eds.), Geld und Wachstum: Zur Philosophie und Praxis des Geldes, Stuttgart, Wien: Weitbrecht, pp. 81–124.Google Scholar
Bromley, D. (1989), Economic Interests and Institutions: The Conceptual Foundations of Public Policy, New York and Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bromley, D. (1991), Environment and Economy: Property Rights and Public Policy, Cambridge and Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V. and Bishop, R. C. (1985), ‘Common Property as a Concept in Natural Resources Policy’, in Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V., Bishop, R. C., and Andersen, S. O. (eds.), Natural Resource Economics: Selected Papers, Boulder and London: Westview Press, pp. 25–37.Google Scholar
Cole, D. H. and Grossmann, P. Z. (2002), ‘The Meaning of Property Rights: Law vs. Economics?’, Land Economics, 78 (3): 317–330.Google Scholar
Commons, J. R. (1995 [1924]), Legal Foundations of Capitalism, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
De Soto, H. (1989 [1986]), The Other Path: The Invisible Revolution in the Third World, New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
De Soto, H. (2000), The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else, London: Bantham Press.Google Scholar
Etoga Eily, F. (1971), Sur les chemins du développement: Essai d'histoire des faits économiques au Cameroun, Yaoundé: CEPMAE.Google Scholar
Gerber, J.-F. and Veuthey, S. (2011), ‘Possession versus Property in a Tree Plantation Socioenvironmental Conflict in Southern Cameroon’, Society and Natural Resources, 24: 831–848.Google Scholar
Griethuysen, P. V. (2004), ‘Rationalité économique et logique de précaution’, Revue européenne des sciences sociales, 42 (130): 203–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griethuysen, P. V. and Nuoffer, F. (2006), ‘A Critical Evolutionary Economic Perspective of Socially Responsible Conservation’, in Oviedo, G. and Griethuysen, P. V. (eds.), Poverty, Equity and Rights in Conservation: Technical Papers and Case Studies, Gland, Geneva: IUCN, IUED, pp. 7–40.Google Scholar
Hallowell, A. I. (1943), ‘The Nature and Function of Property as a Social Institution’, Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1: 115–138.Google Scholar
Hardin, G. (1993 [1968]), ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’, in Daly, H. E. and Townsend, K. N. (eds.), Valuing the Earth: Economics, Ecology, Ethics, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 127–143.Google Scholar
Harris, J. W. (1986), ‘Ownership of Land in English Law’, in MacCormick, N. and Birks, P. (eds.), The Legal Mind: Essays for Tony Honoré, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 143–158.Google Scholar
Harvey, D. (2003), ‘The New Imperialism: On Spatio-Temporal Fixes and Accumulation by Dispossession’, in Panitch, L. and Leys, C. (eds.), The Socialist Register 2004, London: Merlin Press, pp. 63–87.Google Scholar
Heinsohn, G. and Steiger, O. (1996), Eigentum, Zins und Geld: Ungelöste Rätsel der Wirtschaftswissenschaft, Marburg, Germany: Metropolis.Google Scholar
Heinsohn, G. and Steiger, O. (2000), ‘The Property Theory of Interest and Money’, in Smithin, J. (ed.), What Is Money, London: Routledge, pp. 67–100.Google Scholar
Heinsohn, G. and Steiger, O. (2006), Eigentumsökonomik, Marburg, Germany: Metropolis.Google Scholar
Heinsohn, G. and Steiger, O. (2007), ‘Money, Markets and Property’, in Giacomin, A. and Marcuzzo, M. C. (eds.), Money and Markets: A Doctrinal Approach, New York: Routledge, pp. 59–78.Google Scholar
Heinsohn, G. and Steiger, O. (2008), ‘Collateral and Own Capital: The Missing Links in the Theory of the Rate of Interest and Money’, in Steiger, O. (ed.), Property Economics, Marburg, Germany: Metropolis, pp. 181–222.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2006), ‘What are institutions?’, Journal of Economic Issues, 40 (1): 1–25.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2009), ‘On the Institutional Foundations of Law: The Insufficiency of Custom and Private Ordering’, Journal of Economic Issues, 43 (1): 143–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honoré, A. M. (1961), ‘Ownership’, in Guest, A. G. (ed.), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 107–147.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, S. (2005), ‘La Co-gestion Étatique-Communautaire de l'eau à Cochabamba (Bolivie)’, Annuaire suisse de politique de développement: Partenariats public-privé et coopération internationale, 24 (2): 179–190 (Geneva: IUED).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hohfeld, W. N. (1913), ‘Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning’, Yale Law Journal, 23: 16–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hohfeld, W. N. (1917), ‘Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning’, Yale Law Journal, 26: 710–770.Google Scholar
Kapp, K. W. (1950), The Social Costs of Private Enterprise, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kapp, K. W. (1965), ‘Economic Development in a New Perspective: Existential Minima and Substantive Rationality’, Kyklos, 18 (1): 64–77.Google Scholar
Kapp, K. W. (1983 [1970]), ‘Environmental Disruption: General Issues and Methodological Problems’, in Ullmann, J. (ed.), Social Costs, Economic Development and Environmental Disruption, Lanham and London: University Press of America, pp. 39–56Google Scholar
Kerekes, C. B. and Williamson, C. R. (2008), ‘Unveiling de Soto's Mystery: Property Rights, Capital Formation and Development’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 4 (3): 299–325.Google Scholar
Marx, K. (1975 [until 1848]), Early Writings, Livingstone, R. and Benton, G. (translation), Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Nutzinger, H. G. (2008), ‘The Property Approach of Heinsohn and Steiger: Some Questions from an Institutionalist Viewpoint’, in Steiger, O. (ed.), Property Economics, Marburg, Germany: Metropolis, pp. 61–67.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2007), ‘Challenges and Growth: The Development of the Interdisciplinary Field of Institutional Analysis’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 3 (3): 239–264.Google Scholar
Pryor, F. L. (1982), ‘The Plantation Economy as an Economic System’, Journal of Comparative Economics, 8: 288–317.Google Scholar
Steiger, O. (2006), ‘Property Economics versus Institutional Economics: Alternative Foundations of How to Trigger Economic Development’, Journal of Economic Issues, 40 (1): 183–208.Google Scholar
Steiger, O. (2008), ‘The Fundamental Flaw in New Institutional Economics: The Missing Distinction between Possession and Property’, in Steiger, O. (ed.), Property Economics, Marburg, Germany: Metropolis, pp. 261–271.Google Scholar
Steppacher, R. (1995), L'ingérence Écologique et la Globalisation de l'économie de Marché. Nouveau Cahiers de l'IUED, 3: 99–114 (Paris, Geneva: PUF, IUED).Google Scholar
Steppacher, R. (1999), ‘Theoretische Überlegungen: Begriffe und Zusammenhänge’, in Bieri, H., Moser, P., and Steppacher, R. (eds.), Die Landwirtschaft als Chance einer zukunftsfähigen Schweiz: Oder Dauerproblem auf dem Weg zur vollständigen Industrialisiserung der Ernährung?, SVIL-Schrift 135, Zürich: Schweizerische Vereinigung Industrie und Landwirtschaft (SVIL), pp. 9–38.Google Scholar
Steppacher, R. (2008), ‘Property, Mineral Resources and ‘Sustainable Development’, in Steiger, O. (ed.), Property Rights, Creditor's Money and the Foundations of the Economy, Marburg, Germany: Metropolis, pp. 323–354.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1978 [1922]), Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, Roth, G. and Wittich, C. (eds.), Berkely, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Xenos, N. (1989), Scarcity and Modernity, London: Routledge.Google Scholar