MARC Bibliographic Record

LEADER03641cam a2200445Ka 4500
001 9981046823602122
005 20130501095134.0
006 m d
007 cr mn|||||||||
008 090902t20092009maua sb 000 0 eng d
035    $a(OCoLC)ocn435513332
035    $a(WU)8104682-uwmadisondb
035    $a(EXLNZ-01UWI_NETWORK)9910078603002121
040    $aOUN$beng$cOUN$dGZM
043    $au-at---$an-us---$as-bl---
049    $aGZMA
090    $aH11$b.N2434x no.15264
100 1_ $aAlston, Lee J.,$d1951-
245 10 $aDe facto and de jure property rights :$bland settlement and land conflict on the Australian, Brazilian and U.S. frontiers /$cLee J. Alston, Edwyna Harris, Bernardo Mueller.
264 _1 $aCambridge, Mass. :$bNational Bureau of Economic Research,$c[2009]
264 _4 $c©2009
300    $a59 pages :$billustrations, digital.
336    $atext$btxt$2rdacontent
337    $acomputer$bc$2rdamedia
338    $aonline resource$bcr$2rdacarrier
490 1_ $aNBER working paper series ;$vno. 15264
500    $a"September 2009"
504    $aIncludes bibliographical references (pages 49-54).
520    $aWe present a conceptual framework to better understand the interaction between settlement and the emergence of de facto property rights on frontiers prior to governments establishing and enforcing de jure property rights. In this framework, potential rents associated with more exclusivity drives "demand" for commons arrangements but demand is not a sufficient explanation; norms and politics matter. At some point enhanced scarcity will drive demand for more exclusivity beyond which can be sustained with commons arrangements. Claimants will therefore petition government for de jure property rights to their claims - formal titles. Land conflict will be minimal when governments supply property rights to first possessors. But, governments may not allocate de jure rights to these claimants because they face differing political constituencies. Moreover, governments may assign de jure rights but be unwilling to enforce the right. This generates potential or actual conflict over land depending on the violence potentials of de facto and de jure claimants. We examine land settlement and conflict on the frontiers of Australia, the U.S. and Brazil. We are interested in examining the emergence, sustainability, and collapse of commons arrangements in specific historical contexts. Our analysis indicates the emergence of de facto property rights arrangements will be relatively peaceful where claimants have reasons to organize collectively (Australia and the U.S.). The settlement process will be more prone to conflict when fewer collective activities are required. Consequently, claimants resort to periodic violent self-enforcement or third party enforcement (Brazil). In all three cases the movement from de facto to de jure property rights led to potential or actual conflict because of insufficient government enforcement.
533    $aElectronic reproduction.$bCambridge, Mass. :$cNational Bureau of Economic Research.$nMode of access: World Wide Web; may require Adobe Acrobat Reader.
650 _0 $aRight of property$zAustralia$xHistory.
650 _0 $aRight of property$zUnited States$xHistory.
650 _0 $aRight of property$zBrazil$xHistory.
700 1_ $aHarris, Edwyna Margaret.
700 1_ $aMueller, Bernardo,$d1963-
710 2_ $aNational Bureau of Economic Research.
830 _0 $aWorking paper series (National Bureau of Economic Research) ;$vno. 15264.
856 40 $uhttp://www.nber.org/papers/w15264
949    $a20090910$bjeo$cc$dnt$ee$fcall:n$grepl:y$hgls
994    $aC0$bGZM
997    $aMARCIVE

MMS IDs

Document ID: 9910078603002121
Network Electronic IDs: 9910078603002121
Network Physical IDs:
mms_mad_ids: 9981046823602122
mms_ml_ids: 9919714313402124