Should land be owned?

Gill Westcott and Julian Pratt consider a radical proposal

The Principles for a new economy, put forward after much consultation by the Quaker new economy project, states as the goal for a society that reflects Quaker testimonies:

All (including future beings) have an equal right to access and make use of global commons such as land, soil, water, air, and the biosphere’s capacity to process greenhouse gases, within the limits of what is sustainable. Rights to hold and use land are therefore never absolute as land is a common resource. Rights are balanced by responsibilities for the good of all.

Do we agree with this? And insofar as we do, how could such a goal be realised?

Debate about property rights has focused on whether property should be held as private, collective (state) or common property. But the right is always one of ownership – absolute, perpetual and largely unencumbered by responsibilities and duties.

Jonty Williams, in Husbandry: An ancient art for the modern world, reminds us that land tenure traditionally included the responsibility to care for the Earth, embodied in explicit ‘husbandry clauses’. He also points to his need as an agriculturalist to have property rights and boundaries that allow the exclusion of others. He asks how he can do this in a way that is respectful and ‘hospitable’ to those others, and concludes that this requires him to make regular payments to those he excludes that fully compensate them for the desire they have for his land. A property right that includes these duties and responsibilities is very different from ‘ownership’.

Antonia Swinson (25 March) proposes that property rights to land should be of stewardship, not ownership. One definition of stewardship is a bundle of rights and responsibilities, including the right to occupy and make use of the land, the responsibility to care for it and the duty to pay the market rent into a fund to be used for the benefit of all.

In April, Exeter Local Meeting supported a Devon New Economy Gathering at which one among several discussions devoted to reducing inequality focused on the use of a Land Value Tax – the name given by orthodox economists to a tax on the market rent of land. Such a tax would fall on the underlying value of the land, not on that created by care and improvements made by the steward, such as buildings. Its impact, if fully implemented, would be to reduce the purchase price of land to zero; but it would be introduced gradually to avoid disruption to the financial planning of current owners and investors.

Benefits would include the transfer of land from investors to users; a rationale for the government to invest in infrastructure and public services, which increase the value of land; and a stream of revenue that would allow reform of the tax and benefits systems. And internationally, if territorial claims were based on a current willingness to pay rather than an historical claim, many conflicts would be avoided.

This would require government action, but bottom-up approaches are also possible. Community Land Trusts separate private ownership of buildings from common rights to land; and a Devon group is moving towards committed individuals gifting the land they ‘own’ (but not the buildings) to a Trust to be used for the benefit of humanity and the Earth.

Perhaps the ‘next big Quaker cause’ that Antonia Swinson proposes could be to grow a popular movement that promotes the equal right of all to access the land and to benefit from the wealth of the natural world.

We look forward to hearing more as Friends share their views and practices and we work together towards a society that gives a fair future for all.

---

Comments

Please login to add a comment