2015/02/09 by Geoffrey M. Hodgson · 1 citation
Economics, Econometrics and Finance · Social Sciences · #Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems #Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies #Property Rights and Legal Doctrine #Possession (linguistics) #Property rights #Property law #Law and economics #Political science #Property (philosophy) #Adverse possession #Law #Land law #Land tenure #Sociology #Philosophy #Geography
paper · pdf · doi:10.1017/s1744137414000630
openalex publication_date 2015/02/09 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/04
Abstract Legal theorists and other commentators have long established a distinction between property and possession. According to this usage adopted here, possession refers to control of a resource, but property involves legally sanctioned rights. Strikingly, prominent foundational accounts of the ‘economics of property rights’ concentrate on possession, downplaying the issue of legitimate legal rights (Alchian, 1965, 1977; Barzel, 1994, 1997, 2002; von Mises, 1981). Some authors in this genre make a distinction between ‘economic rights’ and ‘legal rights’ where the former are more to do with possession or the capacity to control. They argue that ‘economic rights’ are primary and more relevant for understanding behaviour. But it is argued here that legal factors – involving recognition of authority and perceived justice or morality – have also to be brought into the picture to understand human motivation in modern societies, even in the economic sphere. As other authors including Hernando De Soto (2000) have pointed out, the neglect of the legal infrastructure that buttresses property has deleterious implications, including a failure to understand the role of property in supporting collateralized loans for innovation and economic development.