Predictors of Land Privatization: Cross‐Cultural Tests of Defendability and Resource Stress Theory

Abstract

We have known for some time that complex societies are more likely to have land tenure systems based on private rights and less likely to have communal ownership. Less understood is why. More specifically, what are the mechanisms to explain why complex societies have more private property? What are the adaptive advantages of one system rather than the other? Conceptualizing and coding land tenure systems as a "bundle of rights," this worldwide cross-cultural study suggests that Acheson's (2015) economic defendability theory in conjunction with some environmental stressors, such as drought, may help us understand cross-cultural variation in land tenure systems. Our results have evolutionary implications. They suggest that if property rights were claimed, communal property systems would have been the default system for any society having substantial degrees of hunting, gathering, or herdable animals. Agriculture by itself is not a strong predictor of private land rights, although irrigation agriculture is. [land tenure systems, defendability, resource stress, cross-cultural] RESUMEN Hemos sabido por algún tiempo que las sociedades complejas tienen más probabilidad de tener sistemas de tenencia de la tierra basados en derechos de propiedad privada y menos probabilidad de tener propiedad comunal. Menos entendido es el por qué. Más específicamente, ¿cuáles son los mecanismos para explicar por qué las sociedades complejas tienen más propiedades privadas? ¿Cuáles son las ventajas adaptativas de un sistema en lugar del otro? Al conceptualizar y codificar los sistemas de tenencia de la tierra como un "conjunto de derechos," este estudio transcultural sugiere que la teoría de la defendibilidad económica de Acheson (2015) junto con algunos factores que causan estrés ambiental, como la sequía, pueden ayudar a entender la variación transcultural en sistemas de tenencia de la tierra. Nuestros resultados tienen implicaciones evolucionarias. Ellos sugieren que, si los derechos de propiedad fueron reclamados, los sistemas de propiedad comunal podrían haber sido el sistema por defecto para cualquier sociedad teniendo grados sustanciales de caza, recolección o animales de pastoreo. La agricultura por sí misma no es un predictor fuerte de los derechos de propiedad privada de la tierra, aunque la agricultura con irrigación lo es. [sistemas de tenencia de la tierra, defendibilidad, estrés en los recursos, transcultural] F or more than two millennia, beginning from Greek and Roman times, scholars have been intensely interested in conditions that led to the origin of different property regimes (Engels and Hunt [1884] 2010; Rudmin 1988, 1992a). As summarized by Rudmin (1988), much of the debate concerned whether landed property should be held privately by household heads and entitled heirs or commu

Drivers of global variation in land ownership

“…We suggest that future studies develop a broader range of metrics for capturing the concept of resource defensibility and explore the degree to which the metrics chosen influence the conclusions reached. Although the measures of environmental productivity and predictability that have been used in prior studies (Ember et al in press1974, Cashdan et al 1983, Freeman and Anderies 2015) can theoretically influence potential defensibility and the ability to gather adequate information on resources, the degree to which resources are spatially clustered and the techniques used to assess and gather resources will also shape defensibility.…”

“…We also included the settlement pattern of each society as private land ownership may be less likely in more mobile societies (Ember et al In press1974). We used variable EA030 from D‐PLACE (Murdock 1967, Kirby et al 2016), and we collapsed the variable to a 5‐point ordinal scale: code 1 = nomadic, code 2 = semi‐nomadic, code 3 = semi‐sedentary, code 4 = impermanent (i.e.…”

“…Importantly, the tests of the theory to date have been mostly limited to qualitative case studies (Dyson‐Hudson and Smith 1978), limited sample sizes (Cashdan et al (1983) 4 societies; Baker (2003) 14 societies), and mostly applied to hunter–gatherer groups (Chabot‐Hanowell and Smith 2012). Recently, Ember et al (in press)1974 also found support for resource defensibility as a driver of private versus communal land tenure. However, in a global analysis focused only on hunter–gatherer societies, Freeman and Anderies (2015) found societies were more likely to recognize some form of land ownership when resources became less predictable and less dense.…”

The Evolution and Ecology of Land Ownership

“…Land tenure has been studied extensively from cultural, political, economic, and natural resource management perspectives (e.g. [1][2][3][4][5][6], and theories on property rights date back centuries (7)(8)(9). The evolutionary and biogeographic dynamics that shape these systems over time and space, however, remain largely a matter of theory.…”

“…Second, research on territoriality by ecologists, anthropologists, and economists have converged on the theory of resource defensibility (17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23). This theory argues that as the density and predictability of resources increases so to do the benefits of defending these resources, which leads to a greater probability of individuals or groups owning land (6,15,(24)(25)(26). Third, the use and defense of resources may be linked to subsistence strategies, and certain strategies may work better with specific land ownership norms.…”