LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:

OpenAIRE is about to release its new face with lots of new content and services.
During September, you may notice downtime in services, while some functionalities (e.g. user registration, login, validation, claiming) will be temporarily disabled.
We apologize for the inconvenience, please stay tuned!
For further information please contact helpdesk[at]openaire.eu

fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Goldfinch, S. (2016)
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: JQ, J, HC
Certainty and clarity of legally defined individual private property rights, protected by and from a constrained state, are doctrines of neoclassical economics-derived development theory. But absent these conditions, there may be alternative mechanisms to provide some protection for business development and property. Using a case study drawn from China, I will argue that collective, contested, ambiguous and perhaps absence of legally defined property rights - and a relatively unconstrained state with limited rule of law - has not led to a failure in economic development terms. In some cases there may have been advantages in the Chinese post-Maoist context with economic liberalisation reforms beginning in 1978, and with the building of meaning and institutions found in a transitional state, where rules are unclear and open to debate, and much is up for grabs. Indeed, ambiguity – where something can be understood in variable ways - may have allowed for innovation and experimentation in this transition.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: an empirical investigation. American Economic Review 91, pp. 1369- 1401.
    • Angeles, L. (2011). Institutions, property rights, and economic development in historical perspective. Kyklos 64(2), pp. 157-177.
    • Anderson, J. (2005). Five persistent myths about China's banking system. Cato Journal, 26(2), 243-250.
    • Barro, R. & Sala-i-Martin, X. (2004). Economic growth. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    • Bess, R. (2011). New Zealand's Treaty of Waitangi and the doctrine of discovery: Implications for the foreshore and seabed. Marine Policy 35(1), 85-94.
    • Best, J. (2008). Ambiguity, uncertainty, and risk: rethinking indeterminacy. International Political Sociology 2(4), pp. 355-374.
    • Brandt, L., Ma, D., & Rawski, T. (2013). From divergence to convergence: re-evaluating the history behind China's economic boom. Economic History Working Papers, 175/13. LSE, London, UK.
    • Buchanan, J., & Tullock, G. (1984). An American perspective: From 'markets work' to 'public choice'. In A. Seldon (Ed.), The Emerging Consensus 2nd edition. London: Macmillan.
    • Chanda, A., & Putterman, L. (2007). Early starts, reversals and catch-up in the process of economic development. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 109(2), pp. 387-413.
    • Chen, G., Firth, M., & Xu, L. (2009). Does the type of ownership control matter? Evidence from China's listed companies. Journal of Banking and Finance 33, pp. 171-181.
    • Collins, N. & Gottwald, J. (2014). Market creation by Leninist means: the regulation of financial services in the People's Republic of China. Asian Studies Review 38(4), pp. 620-638.
    • DeRouen, K., & Goldfinch, S. (2012). What makes a state stable and peaceful? Civil Wars 14(4), pp. 499-520.
    • De Soto, H. (2000). The Mystery of Capital. London: Black Swan.
    • Dikötter, F. (2010). Mao's Great Famine. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
    • Dongtao, Z., & Rihui, O. (2012). Reform of Ownership in Modern China. Reading Paths International Ltd.
    • Easterly, W., & Fischer, S. (1995). The Soviet economic decline. The World Bank Economic Review 9(3), 341-371.
    • Easterly, W., & Levine, R. (2003). Tropics, germs, and crops: how endowments influence economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics 50, pp. 3-39.
    • Fails, M., & Krieckhaus, J. (2010). Colonialism, property rights and the modern world income distribution. British Journal of Political Science 40, pp. 487-508.
    • Feng, X., Johansson, A. & Zhang, T. (2014). Political participation and entrepreneurial initial public offerings in China. Journal of Comparative Economics. 42 (2), pp. 269-285.
    • Madhur, G., & Bingxin, Y. (2015). Agricultural productivity growth and drivers: a comparative study of China and India. China Agricultural Economic Review, 7(4), pp. 573-600.
    • Goldfinch, S. (2000). Remaking New Zealand and Australian Economic Policy. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
    • Goldfinch, S. (2015). Property rights and the mystery of capital. PIDS 15(1), pp. 87-96.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Cookies make it easier for us to provide you with our services. With the usage of our services you permit us to use cookies.
More information Ok