Skip to content
Institute of Economic Affairs

Institute of Economic Affairs

Institute of Economic Affairs

Sunday January 17, 2021
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • rss
  • Institute of Economic Affairs
  • Home
  • About
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Epicenter
  • Contact Us
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • rss
  • Blog
  • Film
  • Coronavirus
  • Research
    • Publications
    • Economic Affairs
    • EA Magazine
    • Brexit Unit
    • Int. Trade & Competition Unit
    • SMPC
    • Paragon Initiative
  • Media
    • Media Coverage
    • Press Releases
    • Media Enquiries
    • About IEA Comms
  • Students
    • Internships
    • Events and Conferences
    • Essay Competition
    • Student Resources
    • IEA Budget Challenge
  • Events
    • Forthcoming Events
    • Past Events
  • Donate
    • Donate Now
    • Donate Monthly
    • Donate to IEA Projects
    • Other Ways to Donate
    • Legacy Gift
    • Donate from USA
    • Contact Us
  • Home
  • About
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Epicenter
  • Contact Us

Where property rights are insecure, it is the poor who suffer most

Philip Booth
4 January 2021
Institute of Economic Affairs > Blog > Policies > Society and Culture
The top: Singapore, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Finland, UK, Holland, Sweden, Canada.

The bottom: Venezuela, Haiti, Turkmenistan, Somalia, North Korea, Cuba, Bolivia, Yemen.

 

If I were to ask you of which league table these countries were top and bottom, it would be an almost impossible question to answer. The first group is in the top 20 for almost any measure of social and economic wellbeing and, for that matter, environmental quality measures. The second group is in the bottom 20 for almost any measure of social and economic wellbeing and for environmental quality measures.

In fact, it is a league table of strength of property rights. And it is the strength (or weakness) of property rights which leads to many of the other social, economic and environmental outcomes.

Fratelli tutti, Pope Francis’s recent social encyclical, raised the question of private property within Catholic social teaching. His comments led to him being accused of being a communist by some, whilst others used the opportunity of the encyclical to criticise the institution of private property and economic systems that are based upon it.

It should be noted that the specific statements Pope Francis made were consistent with the tradition of Catholic social teaching. However, without doubt, the points he chose to emphasise were designed to send a very particular message.

Within paragraphs 118-120 which addressed the issue, Pope Francis stated:

“The right to private property can only be considered a secondary natural right, derived from the principle of the universal destination of created goods. This has concrete consequences that ought to be reflected in the workings of society. Yet it often happens that secondary rights displace primary and overriding rights, in practice making them irrelevant.”

Though (with the possible exception of Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum) the generally accepted position in Catholic social teaching is that private property is a secondary right, at least since St. Thomas Aquinas the defence of private property has been a very strong component of Church teaching. Without departing from the principles of Catholic social teaching, Pope Francis seemed to be leading his reader to the conclusion that, in practice, the institution may not serve the common good.

Reason tells us otherwise and experience confirms reason emphatically.

St. Thomas Aquinas suggested that private property has at least three important social functions:

First, it encourages people to work harder because they are working for what they might own—otherwise, people would shirk.

Second, it ensures that affairs are conducted in a more orderly manner—people would understand what they are responsible for rather than everything being everybody’s responsibility.

Third, private property ensures peace if it is divided and its ownership understood.

In relation to the first of these points, it can be added that people are more likely to conserve the natural environment if the ownership of property is well understood. The tragedy of the commons is a well-known phenomenon which describes how, where there is no ownership, environmental resources can be destroyed (those fishing grounds where there are no clear property rights being a particularly tragic example).

An individual in a poor country with inadequate legal delineation of property rights can find themselves homeless overnight. Not only that, such a situation tends to mean that people have no incentive to invest in their property, to bring running water and electricity and so on. And they cannot borrow against their property to, for example, start a business. This is exactly how slum living often develops. And the results are not only mass poverty but a way of living in which violence is never far around the corner. As St. Thomas suggested, if people do not know who owns what and cannot enforce their rights through the legal system, then people can and do use force to establish unjust claims. The people who suffer most from insecure or undefined property rights are the poor and powerless at the expense of the rich and the powerful. This is not just a trivial observation – it is a fundamental problem, perhaps the fundamental problem for a high proportion of the world’s poorest people.

In other words, the norm is that private property is the most effective way we know to promote the universal destination of goods.

It is no doubt the case that there are situations where people have obtained title to land unjustly and it may be appropriate to divest such people of their property. In addition, there are also some places in the world where there are monopoly land holdings which leave the poor living a life of serfs. Often those land holdings will have been accumulated unjustly, perhaps many decades or even centuries ago. In these circumstances, it may be reasonable to point out that private property rights, as currently allocated, do not perform the social function that they should and, by way of exception, they should not be regarded as sacrosanct. Perhaps Pope Francis had such situations in mind. But the exception only serves to illustrate the general point.

Pope Francis was not wrong in a technical sense. But he merely begged the question that St. Thomas answered several centuries ago. And reason, experience and empirical evidence strongly suggest, over and over again, that St. Thomas was right. It would be a pity if a Fratelli tutti promoted the adoption of policies that were catastrophic for the world’s very poorest people and also for the environment.

 

This article was first published on St Mary’s University Twickenham’s Catholic Social Thought blog.

 

Philip Booth
Philip Booth is Senior Academic Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs. He is also Director of the Vinson Centre and Professor of Economics at the University of Buckingham and Professor of Finance, Public Policy and Ethics at St. Mary’s University, Twickenham. He also holds the position of (interim) Director of Catholic Mission at St. Mary’s having previously been Director of Research and Public Engagement and Dean of the Faculty of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences. From 2002-2016, Philip was Academic and Research Director (previously, Editorial and Programme Director) at the IEA. From 2002-2015 he was Professor of Insurance and Risk Management at Cass Business School. He is a Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Federal Studies at the University of Kent and Adjunct Professor in the School of Law, University of Notre Dame, Australia. Previously, Philip Booth worked for the Bank of England as an adviser on financial stability issues and he was also Associate Dean of Cass Business School and held various other academic positions at City University. He has written widely, including a number of books, on investment, finance, social insurance and pensions as well as on the relationship between Catholic social teaching and economics. He is Deputy Editor of Economic Affairs. Philip is a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries and an honorary member of the Society of Actuaries of Poland. He has previously worked in the investment department of Axa Equity and Law and was been involved in a number of projects to help develop actuarial professions and actuarial, finance and investment professional teaching programmes in Central and Eastern Europe. Philip has a BA in Economics from the University of Durham and a PhD from City University.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.

SIGN UP FOR IEA EMAILS

Share this Story

previousRegulationRegulating drone use: have we got the balance right?Roberto White16 December 2020
nextRegulationRelax occupational licensing laws to speed up the post-Covid recoveryLen Shackleton6 January 2021
latestWelfareThere’s a simple solution to the food parcel furoreAnnabel Denham15 January 2021
previous
Regulation

Regulating drone use: have we got the balance right?

4 January 2021
next
Regulation

Relax occupational licensing laws to speed up the post-Covid recovery

4 January 2021
latest
Welfare

There’s a simple solution to the food parcel furore

4 January 2021
Institute of Economic Affairs
BE PART OF THE IEA TODAY
  • Donate
  • Like
  • Follow
  • Watch

NEWSLETTER SIGN UP

Privacy Policy
© Institute of Economic Affairs
REGISTERED IN ENGLAND 755502, CHARITY NO. CC/235 351, LIMITED BY GUARANTEE
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.
Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Advertisement

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.

Performance

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

Analytics

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

Functional

Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.

Uncategorized

Undefined cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.

Save & Accept
×