Could strong property rights hurt economic growth?

[Bootes Void]

I learned of this issue as to how long and expensive the U.S takes to build Infastructure compared to other countries around the world. This is mostly due to more stringent regulations but especially much stronger property rights in U.S.

So could stronger property rights hurt economic growth or is always good for growth no matter what?

[CEO Mindset]

They're the biggest obstacle to prosperity imo. The key to prosperity is a willingness to build the needed infrastructure+stable rules, strength of property rights basically has nothing to do with it.

[parochial boy]

Well obviously yes inso far as a refusal to institute in particular heavy progressive taxes and to nationalise certain industries will greatly hinder a states capacity to act in terms of investing in itself, infrastructure and public services; develop a welfare state; redistribute income in a way that will boost consumption, or respond to crises

[2952-0-0]

The public transit consultant Alon Levy analyzed countries by the practices in construction of rail transit.

He explains that the reasons for the high cost of construction in the US include a lack of in-house professional capacity and other poor project management practices, both in the civil service and the political level. There are some cultural issues such as more NIMBYism in the English-speaking world that raise construction costs, but that's only mentioned as one factor. Japan has an even stronger NIMBY culture, yet still manages with lower construction costs.

The countries with the lowest per-km cost of construction are Spain, Italy, the Nordic countries, Switzerland, and South Korea. The countries with the highest costs are in the English-speaking world.

If property rights need to be weakened to reduce construction costs, keep in mind that China has a higher construction cost than much richer and more property rights-respecting countries like Sweden, Finland, Spain, and Switzerland.

https://transitcosts.com/what-does-the-data-say/
https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/03/03/why-american-costs-are-so-high-work-in-progress/
https://pedestrianobservations.com/2020/09/25/low-and-medium-cost-countries/

They're the biggest obstacle to prosperity imo. The key to prosperity is a willingness to build the needed infrastructure+stable rules, strength of property rights basically has nothing to do with it.

The bolded parts are one and the same. A government with stable rules that it also abides by, is also respecting rights. Without secure property rights, entrepreneurs will be reluctant to commit to big projects that cost plenty of time and money, but which are necessary to generate the high-paying jobs that sustain a wealthy economy. That's why (for instance) in China, where you can wake up tomorrow to learn that the Party has decreed something that affects your business, the entrepreneurial mindset is to make a quick buck, and then high-tail to the US or Australia ASAP. That costs the nation vast amounts of capital and entrepreneurial talent, and what businesses are created are of a short-term nature that can't provide stable and well-paying jobs.

[CEO Mindset]

Nah. India with it's caste system locking people into various roles forever and mass slave societies are examples of stronger property rights than we have presently in various ways.

Last I checked, it was disorganized to the point of allowing wealthy commoners to openly buy titles Britain that industrialized first and not India...

[2952-0-0]

Nah. India with it's caste system locking people into various roles forever and mass slave societies are examples of stronger property rights than we have presently in various ways.

Last I checked, it was disorganized to the point of allowing wealthy commoners to openly buy titles Britain that industrialized first and not India...

Under the caste system and mass slavery, the most basic property right - the right for people to own their own body - isn't respected.

[CEO Mindset]

That's not a property right. In practice owning other people is traditionally considered a property right in most societies.

The only reason chattel slavery wasn't relegalized in the west sometime after the 1960s is boomer inertia and nothing more. I honestly expect to see slave markets in the US surprisingly soon. We've already got them in Libya, after all.

I don't consider it good policy at all, but well we don't seem to get any of what I'd consider advisable or even just non-horrible policy implemented. :/

[Vosem]

Depends on what exactly is meant by "property rights". If you mean the contemporary Western suite of property rights, then in the short term they obviously can (it is often the case that somebody who owns an asset is not the person who can make optimal use of it; much government property should be privatized in an ideal world), but in the long term history and logic both suggest that not guaranteeing the most basic property rights (freedom to exclude, freedom from confiscation) are poisonous to growth.

As some have noted, non-Western societies (or even non-contemporary Western societies) have had different ideas of property rights. Whether something can or can't be owned feels like a non-central example of a property right (it's something like a hypothetical property right), but slavery jumps out as an example of something that has historically been bad for economic growth. (Too-strict intellectual property rights are another). In that sense, yeah, absolutely, strong property rights can hurt economic growth.

[2952-0-0]

That's not a property right. In practice owning other people is traditionally considered a property right in most societies.

Yes, and North Korea claims to be the most democratic country in the world, its argument being that the will of the people are represented by one supreme leader who has the absolute, unquestioned power to do whatever he wants. Other communist countries claim that the Party alone represents the interest of the working class, so it is entitled to impose a dictatorship of the proletariat, and therefore they are more democratic than the west.

As some have noted, non-Western societies (or even non-contemporary Western societies) have had different ideas of property rights. Whether something can or can't be owned feels like a non-central example of a property right (it's something like a hypothetical property right), but slavery jumps out as an example of something that has historically been bad for economic growth. (Too-strict intellectual property rights are another). In that sense, yeah, absolutely, strong property rights can hurt economic growth.

But we're not discussing slavery or excessive copyright lengths. The OP was asking about whether the cost of infrastructure is higher than necessary because of strong property rights in the US. My argument was that other countries with even strongly protected property rights can build infrastructure at a lower cost than the US, since their stronger government institutions are better able to manage projects and control costs. I also pointed out that the cost of infrastructure in China is actually higher than in the best European countries, so weaker property rights doesn't guarantee lower construction costs either.

[Saint Milei]

Rights, real, natural rights, hurt economic growth? Lol

[CEO Mindset]

>using "natural rights"

Yeah, if somebody uses the phrase "natural rights" in a discussion I know not to even bother responding.

[DPKdebator]

In Greater Boston the demand for housing fueled by job growth is far greater than the region's capacity. It's a very densely populated area and most of the desirable areas are nearly maxed out and have little viable land left to build on. Some towns are very NIMBY when it comes to new property developments, which exacerbates the housing crunch. Eventually, this might end up slowing down economic growth in the area.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

No. Examples of eminent domain issues usually place too high of a value on infrastructure and not enough on the pre-existing land ownership/use. Secure property rights are necessary to encourage private investors and businesses to develop property.

[Person Man]

This title should be called "Are Monopolies Bad For The Economy"?

[John Dule]

Depends on which property rights we're talking about. I agree that owners of land should not have any legal """property interest""" in unsubstantial nuisances, sun-blocking, "gentrification," "neighborhood character," "spoiling the view," and other indirect property value diminution that happens as a result of neighboring construction.

[Person Man]

Depends on which property rights we're talking about. I agree that owners of land should not have any legal """property interest""" in unsubstantial nuisances, sun-blocking, "gentrification," "neighborhood character," "spoiling the view," and other indirect property value diminution that happens as a result of neighboring construction.

There is a case that the sort of claims of rights and organizations that promote such claims are unlawful trusts. Thus my original take on this question.