SFeDu
of.211, Gorgoko St., 88 
Rostov-on-Don
Russia
344002
+7 (863) 250-59-54
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
te@sfedu.ru

TERRA ECONOMICUS

  • Home
  • Issues
  • 2016
  • No 2
  • Comparative institutional analisis of land property in Russia, India and USA

COMPARATIVE INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF LAND PROPERTY IN RUSSIA, INDIA AND USA

TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Vol. 14 (no. 2),

The paper presents an evolutionary-institutional approach to study the models of land relations found in Russia, India and the United States. The inquiry employs the Institutional Matrices Theory (IMT), also known as X&Y Theory. This approach is based on the idea that at least two types of economies – X and Y – exist. An X-economy is understood as an economy dominated by supreme conditional property, as well as redistributive and cooperative institutions. Contrarily, the Y-economy characterizes economic systems with a dominance of private property, with the institutions of buying and selling, as well as competition, as the prevalent institutions. Moreover, IMT approach also emphasizes the importance of economic processes in their historical context, as well as the natural and climatic factors affecting the countries. This inquiry seeks to establish a balance between the legal norms and rules regulating land relations that occur in each of the selected countries and their correspondence to either X or Y type. Qualitative content analysis of land regulation practices within historical contexts is carried out. A comparison between different institutional mechanisms for each of the selected countries is made. The paper demonstrates practical significance of evolutionary-institutional approach and its explanatory power required for understanding and assessing specific traits of land relations that could characterize different countries, and may prove useful for making policy decisions.


Keywords: land relations; institutional matrices theory; land property institution; X- and Y-economies

References:
  • Ahiezer A.S. (1997). Russia: a critique of historical experience (social and cultural dynamics of Russia), vol. 1. From past to future. Novosibirsk: Sibirian Chronograph. (In Russian.)
  • Ayatskov D.F. (2002). Property on land in Russia: history and modernity. Moscow: Rosspen, 592 p. (In Russian.)
  • Barsukova S.Y. and Zvyagintsev V.I. (2015). Land reform in Russia in 1990–2000-ies, or how land reform was “reformed” during the departmental reorganization. Journal of Institutional Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 84–98. (In Russian.)
  • Bessonova O.E. (2006). Redistributive economy of Russia: evolution through transformation. Moscow: Rosspen, 144 p. (In Russian.)
  • Bunakov I.I. (1918). The fate of the land system in Russia. Petrograd: Idea Publ. (In Russian.)
  • Dembo L.I. (1962). Essays on modern agrarian legislation of the capitalist countries – USA, Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany. Moscow: Gosyurizdat Publ., 248 p. (In Russian.)
  • Karsanov B.S. (2014). Features of state regulation of land relations in foreign countries. Economic sciences, no. 5 (114), pp. 146–149. (In Russian.)
  • Kirdina S.G. (2003). Land property institution in Russia. Economic issues, no. 10, pp. 146–153. (In Russian.)
  • Kirdina S.G. (2014). Institutional matrices and development in Russia: an introduction to X&Y theory. Moscow; Saint-Petersburg: Nestor-History, 468 p. (In Russian.)
  • Kirdina S.G., Kuznetsova А.V. and Senko О.V. (2015). Climate and institutional matrices: cross-country analysis. Sociological research, no. 9, pp. 3–13. (In Russian).
  • Konotopov М.V. (2008). Economic history of the world, vol. 2. Мoscow: KNORUS, 528 p. (In Russian.)
  • Mescheryakov А.N. (2003). A book of Japanese customs. Мoscow: Natalis. (In Russian.)
  • Neru J. (1955). The discovery of India. Мoscow: Foreign literature publisher, 652 p. (In Russian.)
  • North D. (1997). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Мoscow: The Fund of economic book «Nachala». (In Russian.)
  • Official site of Unified interdepartmental information and statistical system (2016) (https://www.fedstat.ru/indicator/31328.do). (In Russian.)
  • Sokolov G.M. (2013). Institutional design of land relations in Russia during post-transition period. Economic revival of Russia, no. 1 (35), pp. 112–129. (In Russian.)
  • Sokolov G.M. (2015). Ownership of land in modern Russia: theoretical analysis. Journal of economic theory, no. 2, pp. 133–138. (In Russian.)
  • The great Soviet encyclopedia (1978). USSR. RSFSR. Moscow: Soviet encyclopedia (http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/bse/129078/%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A0). (In Russian.)
  • Venediktov A.V. (1948). State social property. Moscow – Leningrad: Academy of Sciences of USSR Publ., 839 p. (In Russian.)
  • Appu P.S. (1997). Land reform in India: a survey of policy, legislation and implementation. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.
  • Colin J.-Ph. (2008). Disentangling intra-kinship property rights in land: a contribution of economic ethnography to land economics in Africa. Journal of Institutional Economics, vol. 4, issue 2, pp. 231–254.
  • Common Property Resources in India (1999). NSS 54th Round. National Sample Survey Organisation. Department of Statistics and Programme Implementation Government of India (http://mospi.nic.in/rept%20_%20pubn/452_final.pdf).
  • Deaton B.J. (2012). A Review and Assessment of the Heirs’ Property Issue in the United States. Journal of Economic Issues, vol. 46, issue 3, pp. 615–632.
  • Hanstad T., Nielsen R. and Brown J. (2004). Land and livelihoods. Making land rights real for India’s rural poor. Rural Development Institute, USA (fftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/j2602e/j2602e00.pdf).
  • Krall L. (2001). US Land Policy and the Commodification of Arid Land. Journal of Economic Issues, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 657–674.
  • Libecap G.D. and Lueck D. (2011). The Demarcation of Land and the Role of Coordinating Property Institutions. The Journal of Political Economy, vol. 119, no. 3, pp. 426–467.
  • Maslov A. and Volchik V. (2014). Institutions and Lagging Development: The Case of the Don Army Region. Journal of Economic Issues, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 727–742.
  • Neale W.C. (1985). Property in Land as Cultural Imperialism: or, Why Ethnocentric Ideas won’t work in India and Africa. Journal of Economic Issues, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 951–958.
  • Singh R. (2012). Inefficiency and Abuse of Compulsory Land Acquisition. An Enquiry into the Way Forward. Economic & political Weekly, vol. XLVII, no. 19 (http://econdse.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Inefficiency_and_Abuse_of_Compulsory_Land_Acquisition.pdf).
  • Wegren S.K. (2009). Russia’s Incomplete Reform. Russian Analytical Digest, 64/09, no. 15, pp. 2–7.
Publisher: Southern Federal University
Founder: Southern Federal University
ISSN: 2073-6606