Oftentimes land speculators and land grabbers hold the state hostage, or succeed in planting its representatives within government agencies.
The result: needy people are deprived of their livelihoods, common resources get enclosed and the land concentration process continues.
A high share of these costs is borne by the community.
These costs comprise the costs of planning, the costs of infrastructure construction and the opportunity costs of forgoing alternative public or private land use.
They believe that this is the only way to ensure that the persons who bear the investment costs will reap the yields (Feder and Feeny 1991).
Investments in improvements (plantings, renovations, houses, etc.) would be stimulated by individual ownership, and an overuse of resources (as described by Garrett Hardin in his “tragedy of the commons” essay) could be avoided.Economists call these factors “differential rents.” Such advantages are often circumstantial and beyond the control of individual owners.In most cases, in fact, the basis for land values is created by the community, e.g., changes in land use plans or investments in infrastructure that affect the value of the site.They strenuously object to private property regimes that exclude all other forms of property rights because such regimes trample underfoot the manifold commons institutions that have ensured broad access to land and sustainable use for a long time.Governmental development organizations are taking greater notice of this criticism, but some promising conceptual alternatives are beyond the scope so far.So where does this fixation on private property come from?From a legal point of view, private property rights grant the possibility to exclude other persons from an asset.The driving forces behind this development are – besides the usual suspects, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization – governmental development organizations themselves.For land use and land rights, development usually entails the formalization, specification and individualization of property rights.The privatization strategy of national and international governmental development organizations has often been criticized.Nongovernment organizations (NGO) working on environment and human right issues are particularly vocal in arguing that private property on land means the loss of livelihood and forced evictions, especially among socially and economically vulnerable groups.