tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25892266.post5543097678207045709..comments2024-01-28T01:53:28.605-08:00Comments on hyperborea: Titling's reverse causal effects on the poorutopia or busthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09330052275507966278noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25892266.post-55302569342600266322008-11-30T00:46:00.000-08:002008-11-30T00:46:00.000-08:00Thanks again for the links, Kendle and Anon. Anok,...Thanks again for the links, Kendle and Anon. <BR/><BR/>Anok, I'm writing more on titling soon. I don't think titling is effective, and I think by eminent domain you meant the governments would steal the land back or just develop on poor peoples' land whenever they want, and I think that's true.Acumenschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14502771279290190296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25892266.post-51170096440553746252008-11-25T16:27:00.000-08:002008-11-25T16:27:00.000-08:00It's an interesting premise, but where are you goi...It's an interesting premise, but where are you going with it, and how effective (really) is titling?<BR/><BR/>Think, eminent domain. Unless I've totally misread your post to mean something else, which is possible.Anokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05675278947623136467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25892266.post-34011160407329144012008-11-25T09:19:00.000-08:002008-11-25T09:19:00.000-08:00oh and you may be interested in this, not because ...oh and you may be interested in this, not because you agree or disagree, but because of the information and the fact thats its about the local area<BR/><BR/>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008241670_opin09hanstad.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25892266.post-12919637816815569202008-11-25T09:16:00.000-08:002008-11-25T09:16:00.000-08:00Joe,The Urban Land Institute- seattle location(htt...Joe,<BR/>The Urban Land Institute- seattle location<BR/><BR/>(http://seattle.uli.org/)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25892266.post-74537955060818147292008-11-24T12:02:00.000-08:002008-11-24T12:02:00.000-08:00Thanks for commenting everybody.Hans - you would t...Thanks for commenting everybody.<BR/><BR/>Hans - you would think "development" is a process from collectivization to individualization from reading the Bank's articles. They have done as much as they can to discredit the idea of collectively-owned or cooperative land holdings. Deininger (2003) for example. I'm looking into whether any state has given squatted territory "reservation" status, kind of like native reservations. <BR/><BR/>Kendle - I've noticed the Bank authors never put "it's good for women" as an advantage of land titling. Because they know that men will clear areas of women so that no woman will own formal property. The one advantage the Bank has consistently argued is that titling will bring access to credit, which has only been true for land holdings over 20 hectares. It's unlikely URBAN squatters would ever have enough property (20 hectares) to use it as collateral at a commercial bank.<BR/><BR/>Anon - Seattle-based, that's excellent because I'm not far from there. I'm interested in urban development more so than rural though. It's just that most of the studies on land titling have come from the rural informal sectors. Thanks for the plug!Acumenschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14502771279290190296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25892266.post-27593185072608782002008-11-24T08:33:00.000-08:002008-11-24T08:33:00.000-08:00Interesting post. You might be interested in the w...Interesting post. You might be interested in the work of a Seattle-based org called the Rural Development Institute that considers land rights to be the foundation of poverty alleviation and works with governments to help create better laws and policies to help the rural poor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25892266.post-37912038157657098012008-11-23T23:29:00.000-08:002008-11-23T23:29:00.000-08:00It's also interesting to consider how land rights ...It's also interesting to consider how land rights have historically worked against minorities and the under represented- for example, in much of Africa, secure land rights took the decision making power and profit away from women, who had been the primary cultivators and labor. Instead they were granted to men, which completely altered household and profit dynamics. Land rights also allow for legal land consolidation, causing the law to side with the owners rather than the workers/squatters/indigenous people. Land rights are useful for encouraging investment, especially for the long term, but they also provide legal barriers and structures for the people who are overlooked by law makers, who often need the source of productivity to sustain their livelihoods, not just make profit. They are a useful tool but perhaps an often misused and misguided one?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25892266.post-91483862195160494372008-11-23T19:45:00.000-08:002008-11-23T19:45:00.000-08:00Thanks for the post. How does (if at all) the idea...Thanks for the post. How does (if at all) the idea of "the commons" (land available to common use) figure into these two models?Hans Ostromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18430196297977803990noreply@blogger.com