Abstract
De Soto argues that formally establishing individually titled property rights releases value that can assist the poor in lower income countries. I argue Soto’s treatment of property rights is overly narrow, legalistic and individualistic. Second, effective property rights do not exist outside other formal and informal institutions. Third, there is no necessary conflict between informal, traditional and communal rights and economic development. Fourth, evidence suggests establishing individual property rights can harm the poor in some cases. Fifth, studies suggest establishing title does not increase access to credit for the poor. Finally, de Soto’s notion of ‘dead capital’ is questioned.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 87-96 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | Progress in Development Studies |
| Volume | 15 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 19 Jan 2015 |
| Externally published | Yes |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 1 No Poverty
-
SDG 8 Decent Work and Economic Growth
Free Keywords
- capital
- de Soto
- economic development
- institutions
- low-income countries
- property rights
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Development
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Property rights and the mystery of capital: A review of de Soto’s simplistic solution to development'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver