Hostname: page-component-599cfd5f84-56l7z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T06:11:45.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Economic property rights’ as ‘nonsense upon stilts’: a comment on Hodgson

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2015

DANIEL H. COLE
DANIEL H. COLE*
Affiliation:
Indiana University Maurer School of Law, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Bloomington, IN, USA.
*
*Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hodgson's (2015) critique of extra-legal ‘property rights’ – in this case, so-called ‘economic property rights’ – is right on target. This Comment contributes two further points to his critique. First, the notion of ‘economic property rights’ is based on what Gilbert Ryle (1949) referred to as a ‘category mistake’, conflating physical possession, which is a brute fact about the world, with the right or entitlement to possession, which is a social or institutional fact that cannot exist in the absence of some social contract, convention, covenant, or agreement. The very notion of a non-institutional ‘right’ is oxymoronic. Second, the fact that property is an institutional fact does not mean it must exist with the structure of a ‘state’ (as Bentham suggested). Rather, institutions like ‘property rights’ only require some community, however large or small, operating with what Searle (1995; 2005) calls collective intentionality and collective acceptance, according to shared ‘rules of recognition’ (Hart, 1997).

Type
Comment
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 725 - 730
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, D. W. (2014), ‘The Coase Theorem: Coherent, Logical, and not Disproved’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 11 (2): 379–390.Google Scholar
Benson, B. L. (1990), The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State, San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. (1962 [1843]), ‘Principles of the Civil Code’, in Bowring, J. (ed.), The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 1, New York: Russell & Russell.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. (1962 [1843]), ‘Anarchical Fallacies: Being an Examination of the Declarations of Rights Issued During the French Revolution’, in Bowring, J. (ed.), The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 2, Edinburgh: William Tait.Google Scholar
Cole, D. H. and Grossman, P. Z. (2002), ‘The Meaning of Property Rights: Law Versus economics?’, Land Economics, 78 (3): 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dukeminier, J., Krier, J. E., Alexander, G. S., Shill, M. H. and Stahilevitz, L. J. (2014), Property (8th ed.), New York: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
Ellickson, R. C. (1991), Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Greif, A. (1993), ‘Contract Enforceability and Economic Institutions in Early Trade: The Maghribi Traders’ Coalition’, American Economic Review, 83 (3): 525–548.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1997), The Concept of Law, (2d ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1967), ‘The Results of Human Action But Not of Human Design’, in Hayek, F. A. (ed.), Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, Abington, London, Oxon, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 96–105.Google Scholar
Helmholz, R. H. (1986), ‘Wrongful Possession of Chattels: Hornbook Law and Case Law’, Northwestern University Law Review, 80 (5): 1221–1243.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2015), ‘Much of the “Economics of Property Rights” Devalues Property and Legal Rights’, Journal of Institutional Economics, published online. doi:10.1017/S1744137414000630.Google Scholar
Hohfeld, W. N. (1913), ‘Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions As Applied in Judicial Reasoning’, Yale Law Journal, 23 (1): 16–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honoré, A. M. (1961), ‘Ownership’, in Guest, G. A. (ed.), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reprinted in the Journal of Institutional Economics, 9(2): 227–255.Google Scholar
Libecap, G. D. (1989), Contracting for Property Rights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. and Schlager, E. (1992), ‘Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis’, Land Economics, 68 (3): 249–262.Google Scholar
Ryle, G. (1949), The Concept of Mind, New York: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1995), The Construction of Social Reality, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (2005), ‘What is an institution?’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 1 (1):1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar