I haven't got to De Soto yet. But what's the conceptual difference,
here, between this orientation to property rights, and the
old-fashioned modernisation theory strategy of invoking "native land
husbandry" (their words) in the form of commodified titles to land,
in what were previously tributary-based (and often quite communal)
systems of land tenure?
The basis for this in at least one setting, "Soutern Rhodesia"
(Zimbabwe), was the attempt by a liberal manufacturing-based ruling
elite of white settlers to ensure a steady supply of labour in the
cities, and by the post-war era the standard mechanisms of coersion
(e.g., hut taxes, outright pillage and other acts of colonial
civilisation) had been exhausted or were frowned upon; getting people
off their lands had to be accomplished by other means. Giovanni
Arrighi's work on this topic, by the way, has been seminal.
The effect of the land-commodification strategy, at least in
Southern Africa, has been pathetic since at least the late 1950s when
the World Bank began funding Rhodesian provision of titles to
peasants (via their local chiefs). The traditional "commons"
disappeared (hence grazing land was bitterly contested);
concentration of land holdings worsened; commodification worsened
other social tensions; debt rose to unbearable levels for those
who got credit from suppliers or state financing agencies; and
most importantly, eventually serious riots broke out (resulting in
the whole process being abandoned for quite some time). Meanwhile,
where implemented, the silly strategy didn't even work on its own
terms, given the other related, very hostile, market relations
(overproduction of outputs, as well as high-cost inputs like credit,
fertiliser, pesticides, as well as the difficulties faced in bringing
produce to market).
Today, mostly micro-credit hucksters are pushing property
rights to rural land in this neck of the woods. Virtually all the
progressive rural social movements oppose further commodification of
the most basic form of dignity that many of their constituents
possess.
But maybe there's lots more to it?
> From: "Max Sawicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [PEN-L:7743] RE: RE: Hernando de Soto
> Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:58:40 -0500
> Importance: Normal
> Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> . . . De Soto, in other words,
> emphasizes the lack of a rational and functioning legal system of contract
> and property rights as the impediment to the poor. David Shemano
>
>
> JD's precis makes DeSoto sound very much worth
> reading, a developing world form of populism.
>
> mbs
>
>
