All content in this area was uploaded by Laura S. Underkuffler on Oct 22, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
... Jurists themselves know all too well that contracts cannot account for the diversity of actual practice, and they have developed ideas much subtler than the monolithic concept of property that organization scholars borrow from them (e.g. Epstein, 1978;Honoré, 1993;Underkuffler, 1990). For instance, Rose (2015, p. 60) recognizes that owners must also rely on physical assistance to exercise their rights, for instance to 'exclude others with the help of neighbours and legal officers.' ...
... The possessive relations to which people participate define them. This is true for legal property, which delimits the sphere of the proper, the personal, in opposition to outside infringement (Underkuffler, 1990), but also of other forms of possession. I have a job, a task, a department, an idea, but also friends, a gender and so forth, and the things I have participate to what I am. ...
Property is pervasive, and yet we organization scholars rarely discuss it. When we do, we think of it as a black-boxed concept to explain other phenomena, rather than studying it in its own right. This may be because organization scholars tend to limit their understanding of property to its legal definition, and emphasize control and exclusion as its defining criteria. This essay wishes to crack open the black box of property and explore the many ways in which possessive relations are established. They are achieved through work, take place as we make sense of signs, are invoked into existence in our speech acts, and travel along sociomaterial networks. Through a fictionalized account of a photographic exhibition, we show that property overflows its usual legal-economic definition. Building on the case of the photographic exhibit, we show that recognizing the diversity of property changes our rapport with organization studies as a field, by unifying its approaches to the individual-vs.-collective dilemma. We conclude by noting that if theories can make a difference, then whoever controls the assignment of property – including academics who ascribe properties to their objects of study – decides not only who has or who owns what, but also who or what that person or thing can be.
... Contemporary scholars, especially those of the Critical Legal Studies movement, who became known as the property as social relations school, have extensively developed and expanded the early realist work on property: see (Macpherson 1975(Macpherson , 104, 1978aNedelsky 1989Nedelsky , 1990Nedelsky , 1993Kennedy 1991;Singer 1982Singer , 1988Singer , 1991Singer , 1992Singer , 2000aSinger , b, 2005Singer and Beermann 1993;Rose 1994;Baker 1986;Underkuffler 1990Underkuffler , 2003. 9 Joseph William Singer, the modern exemplar of social relations, offers this succinct summary: '[p]roperty concerns legal relations among people regarding control and disposition of valued resources. ...
The dominant modern conception of private property has been and is liberal. Liberalism concerns itself with promoting and protecting freedom of choice for the individual—natural or legal—and groups of them. Private property is liberalism’s vehicle for achieving that objective—conferring choice—in the allocation and control of goods and resources—natural or manufactured, tangible or intangible—among individuals. Yet the last 35 years, and longer, depending on how one understands the scholarship, stand witness to an explosion of property theory literature, much of it focusing upon what has come to be known as property as social relations or the progressive property movement. This ‘social shift’ recognises the importance of community interests in understanding both the concept of property and its invocation in real world legal systems. To a great extent, then, and depending upon how one looks at it, the property as social relations or progressive property view seems either an entirely American phenomenon or, whatever the phenomenon might be, it has been appropriated by American theorists. Seldom in this modern theorising, however, do we see mentioned the name of Léon Duguit. Yet, in the sixth of a series of lectures given in 1911 in Buenos Aires, Duguit coined the now axiomatic French phrase ‘propriété function sociale’ or the social function of property, meaning that rather than a right, property is a social function. And while the social function of property has come to have an importance, not only in France, but also in the civil law tradition itself, and while this notion has had wide, if un-attributed and seldom regarded, influence in the common law tradition and theory of property, Duguit’s lecture has rarely been translated into English into English and even more infrequently adverted to by the property as social relations/progressive property movements.
... Comprehensive liberalism holds that the liberal state should enhance the good life of its citizens. In recent decades, comprehensive liberalism has been dominated by the view that autonomy is a constituent element of the good For a similar approach, see Underkuffler 1990;Singer 2006;Dagan 2007Dagan , 1259Dagan 2011, 44-45. In Property and Human Flourishing Alexander supplements his social obligation theory of property with the ideal of human flourishing. ...
American rights discourse makes it difficult to generate responsibilities for the well-being of the communities within which human personhood is formed. Gregory S. Alexander’s Property and Human Flourishing (2018) focuses on the obligations that property owners owe to the communities in which they are embedded. Drawing on a communitarian ontology—as opposed to atomist ontology—and writing in the spirit of Aristotle, John Stuart Mill, and thinkers of the liberalism of flourishing, Alexander endorses human flourishing as the central ideal of the good life, and argues that ownership of property is justified insofar as it facilitates the opportunity of persons to live flourishing lives.
History, economy, policy arrangements, and individual choices can all explain changes in ruralness. The rural transformation represents the main focus of this study which is intended to be a journey in the past to discover the present and understand the future, figuratively marked by the expression “from scythe to smartphone”. The objective of the paper is twofold. Firstly, to offer benchmarks on Romania's economic literature and the modern political, economic, and social changes that have shaped today's rural communities. Secondly, to assess the importance that people assign to rural land and rural population. The research was developed in two main parts and it used a mixed-method approach including document analysis as a qualitative method and survey as a quantitative method. A stratified random sampling method at the country level was used to select a sample of 217 persons. A broad context for the debate on how to negotiate for preserving the ruralness is also outlined. The analysis suggested a small perceived deficit of the rural population for ensuring environmental protection and food security. The results revealed that the hardship of rural space was a human-engineered problem and that modernity, through technology, deeply impacts the diversification of rural people's needs. It follows that this study could stimulate the stewardship of ruralness in other national contexts where rural space is about to become a cyber-reality, a museum space of “how it was once”. Moreover, the present contribution recommends the realignment of rural-urban boundaries. Last but not least, the complex interaction among small-scale farmers' motivations and needs, large-scale land acquisitions consequences, rural exodus, and the dynamics of rural land and population must be scrutinized as well.
As a liberal institution, private property is based upon a view of the natural order that prioritizes the individual human being over our social existence and over our nonhuman others. Colonial expansion was enabled in part by the misrecognition and denigration of indigenous land management practices. Forms of property were imposed that were incommensurable with the sustainable relationships formed by original owners with land. Given the ubiquity of the Anglosphere’s degraded and abstract understanding of property, is it possible to imagine the decolonization of property? Can property be rethought to close the divide between person and thing, and to better acknowledge the normative values of mutuality and care between people and place? What resources are there within mainstream property theory that might allow for such a reconstruction of property?
This article argues that public property rights should be recognised as a separate category of property interest, different and distinct from private and common property interests and conferring distinctive rights and obligations on both “owners” and members of the public. It develops a taxonomy to differentiate private, public and common property rights. The article concludes that it is a mistake to think in terms of “private property”, “common property” or “public property”. The division and allocation of resource entitlements in land can result in private, common and public property rights subsisting over the same land simultaneously, in different combinations and at different times. The categorisation of property interests in land (as private, common or public) may also shift and change from time to time. The article considers the importance of distinguishing between private, common and public property interests for developing new strategies for environmental governance, and for implementing the effective protection of natural resources.
This article offers three reflections on the nature of the metaphysical ‘wall’ erected between the ‘Included’ and the ‘Excluded/Other’ by the concept of private property and its implementation in a state’s legal apparatus. The first reflection explores the reality of the concept of private property, using Louis Althusser’s conception of ideology, in order to demonstrate that the liberal conception of private property masks power operating on two levels: the formal, repressive state apparatus, and the deeper, the personal, the real, the actual level, which allows the Included to act upon ego in ways that negatively affect the Excluded/Other found in the ideological state apparatus. The second argues that the masked power that is private property permits war to be waged by the Included as against the Excluded/Other at two levels: intra-state and inter-state. This reveals a paradox in the distinction between Included and Excluded/Other: while the distinction demonstrates the allocation of power over resources, the reality is that every individual on earth is both Included and Excluded/Other. The final reflection briefly considers what could replace private property as a means of allocating goods and resources within a society.
This article examines three tales of property which emerged from a recent planning law saga in Queensland from late 2014 to June 2015. Although each tale appears to offer a different interpretation of private property, this article suggests that the three tales are really one, but told with differing emphases on the issue of regulation. It reimagines the concept of private property and its relationship to regulation and explores the state’s role in using planning law as a tool to constrain the power of property to affect the lives of others.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.