Image Database Export Citations


The Property Regime of Socialism: Theoretical Afterword

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Verdery, Katherine en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2009-07-31T14:49:39Z
dc.date.available 2009-07-31T14:49:39Z
dc.date.issued 2004 en_US
dc.date.submitted 2009-01-16 en_US
dc.date.submitted 2009-01-16 en_US
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/10535/2399
dc.description.abstract "In their introduction to this set of articles, Janet Sturgeon and Tomas Sikor ask whether we are justified in lumping together Central European and East Asian cases of property transformation. Their answer to this question is yes, despite significant differences that result from the collapse of socialism1 in East-Central Europe on the one hand, and its maintenance with modifications in East Asia on the other. They also suggest that cases from both areas have things in common that distinguish them from apparently similar post-colonial situations. Among the differences they emphasise is the relative absence of rules and regularised practices in the socialist/post-socialist cases as compared with the post-colonial ones. The disarray of rules and routines is greater in East-Central Europe than in East Asia, but in the realm of property transformation both show greater instability than the post-colonial cases. In the socialist cases states attempted to compel private ownership and greater responsibility for resource management onto lower-level populations, some of whom resisted it while others local elite in particular profited from it. Post-socialist property transformation everywhere had the aim of freeing central authorities from having to provide for the rural population. Giving it rights to land would enable greater self-sufficiency, a boon to governments struggling under increasing economic crisis. Post-colonial property regimes, by contrast, did not radically dismantle colonial-era institutions so much as alter the personnel who staffed them; changes in property relations followed gradually, as post-colonial governments brought into programmes of development. Conservation & It is my task here to sketch the socialist property regime from which the East-Central European and East Asian cases have all diverged during the 1990s, as firm central control over propertied resources gave way to devolution of property rights. In particular, I indicate how, from the vantage point of the exclusive, individualised private ownership preferred by neo-liberal actors, both socialist and post-socialist property forms appear fuzzy. That, in turn, has implications for our understanding the process of privatising, or decollectivising, landed resources." en_US
dc.subject socialism en_US
dc.subject property rights en_US
dc.subject transitional economics en_US
dc.title The Property Regime of Socialism: Theoretical Afterword en_US
dc.type Journal Article en_US
dc.type.published published en_US
dc.coverage.region East Asia en_US
dc.coverage.region Europe en_US
dc.subject.sector Theory en_US
dc.identifier.citationjournal Conservation & Society en_US
dc.identifier.citationvolume 2 en_US
dc.identifier.citationnumber 1 en_US
dc.identifier.citationmonth January en_US

Files in this item

Files Size Format View
c_s_2_1-8-katherine.pdf 191.5Kb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following document type(s)

Show simple item record