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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shaun Goldfinch (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: