A.I. Hallowell (1943: 119) once stated that, “Property as a social institution implies a system of relations between individuals. Like other social institutions, it involves rights, duties, powers, privileges, forbearances, etc, of certain kinds.” While this view of property has been highly debated in some academic circles, there is ample evidence that what Hallowell states is indeed correct. Thus, even though property is often examined in both legal and economic contexts, there are definitive grounds upon which property can clearly be defined as a social institution. With this in mind, this investigation considers what scholars have noted about property as a social construct mitigating human interactions that transcend legal and economic discourse.
Property as a Social Institution—A Literature Review
A precursory overview of what has been written about the social aspects of property, clearly indicates that property possess many of the social elements that are critical for social interaction and relationship building. To illustrate this point, Guy and Henneberry (2000) in their analysis of the social dimensions of property assert that, property serves as a gateway between the individual and the physical world. In this context, property is a social reality that enhances human development:
[...] Other scholars have supported this paradigm of property as a social institution by providing arguments against the economic and legal aspects of property. For example, Henry (2001) argues that in contemporary economic theory, economic law has been equated with natural law. In this context, “Social norms, institutions, and behavior should conform to economic standards which are predicated on good theory, theory that is developed independent of any specific social context” (p. 633). Even though this process works well in theory, Henry argues that it does not apply in practice. [...]
[...] In this process, the social aspect of property is transformed from a purely economic state into one which must become social in order to have value and relevance for modern society. Henry and Ferrari-Filho's focus on the integral relationship between the social and economic aspects of property provides some basis for arguing that property is not just an economic institution. Rather, in order for property to have meaning, it must assume some dimensions of the social. Without this transformation, the economic aspects of property have not real value for society (Oberschall & Leifer 1986). [...]
[...] Even though Hallowell appears to be right about the social dimension of property, what his hypothesis does not quantify is the fact that in order to understand the complexity of the social realm of property, the integral ties that exist between property and economic and legal systems must also be discussed. Property does not exist in one context that provides a basis for all understanding on the topic. To argue that property is a purely social form with unique rights, privileges and duties does not appear to accurately capture the true nature of the social dimension of property. [...]
[...] While the social dimension of property can be discussed in terms of the rights, duties, powers and privileges that are engendered, there are instances when these issues will transcend the purely social and infiltrate the legal and economic aspects of property. As such, this research proposes that property be illuminated in a spectrum that allows for the overlap of social, economic and legal issues. Because of the integral nature of the development of these systems, it is impossible to separate them in the understanding and definition of property rights, duties, etc. [...]
[...] Drucker (1995) in his examination of the integral relationship between property as a social, economic and political institution insists that through an analysis of the modern corporation, the integral nature that synthesizes all three aspects of property is elucidated. According to Drucker, the social contract of the corporation a social entity is actually created through the subjection of each member's individual property right under corporate management. Just as the people remain sovereign in the contract theory of Locke, so the stockholders remain sovereign in the corporation” (p. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
