Agricultural Research Management Information System

Home
Research Summary
Search
About Us
- ARMIS
- Brochure
Contact Us
Report
User Request
Data Input
Help
- Operation Manual
  - PDF
  - Video
- Program Area & Commodity
We have reached 37600 number of research entries at this moment.

- Logout

Research Detail

Home
Research
Detail

Property Rights in the Perspective of Law and Economics - an Analysis

Md. Dulal Miah
College of Economics, Management, and Information Systems, University of Nizwa, Nizwa Sultanate of Oman.

Abstract/ Executive Summary:

Property right is a legal concept, no doubt. Without economic sense of legal delimitation, the institution does not contribute much to the progress of society. Hence, there is an inherent tension between legal and economics scholars in defining property rights. Some legal scholars advocate restricting the term within the purview of legal barricade whereas economists see the institution of property right as an economic problem. This paper critically analysis the legal and economic perspectives of property rights and examines important commonalities and differences between them. The analysis shows that despite much disagreement between these two schools the notion of ‘residual right’ on property can be endorsed without much debate. Residuarity has been argued to be grounded the greatest interest one might have in property reflected in both legal and economic thoughts. Moreover, residual right analysis of property is compatible with welfare judgment of resource distribution.

Keywords: Private property, Residual rights, Resource distribution, Welfare analysis

Location:

Start Date:

End Date:

Program Area: Socio-economic and Policy

Non-commodity: Validation, Performance

Objectives:

This paper simply attempts to explain the elements by which legal definition of property rights differ from economic perception.

Methodology:

Firstly, the study will concentrate only on private property rights leaving communal and state ownership untouched though the role of state in ensuring and protecting these rights should be acknowledged. Demsetz (1967) defines communal ownership as a form of ownership that allows each member of a community to access the resource in question. State ownership on the other hand, implies that the state may exclude anyone from the use of a right as long as the state follows accepted political procedures for determining who may not use state-owned property (Demsetz, 1967). Secondly, in line with the conventional wisdom and contemporary literature on property rights the paper does not differentiate between ownership and right because they are overlapping and not mutually exclusive. For example, Penner (2000), used these terms interchangeably, and also in Maitland (1886), “ownership is a right or a bundle of rights”. Thus, assuming so would not cause any trouble for capturing the true meaning of property rights.

Source of Information: Journal of PSTU Vol. 5 No. 2 December 2014

Article Link (Online Journal):

Funding Source:

Total Budget (Tk.) :

Achievement/Findings:

From the review of this paper it may be concluded that economic rights do not require legal validation or legal rights do not have economic meaning. Interdisciplinary approach to socio-economic issues such as law and economics in the academic sphere bears testimony that economics and law should not necessarily be conflicting. Rather one cannot be complete excluding the other.But social norms and mores validate purchaser’s rights on property. Among standard incidents forwarded by many legal and economic scholars, they can sensibly be minimized to the concept of residuary.

Knowledge Management: Journal