Fundamental Functionings of Landowners: Understanding the relationship between land ownership and wellbeing through the lens of ‘capability’

Abstract

Given land owners’ resistance to the compulsory acquisition of land and the recurring debate on inadequacy of compensation, this research re-examines losses of landowners in terms of loss of functionings offered by land. The aim of this research paper is to understand the relationship between land ownership and well-being when seen through the lens of Sen’s (1979) ‘capability approach’ and to identify fundamental functionings associated with land that are generalizable at global level. The relationship between wellbeing and functionings offered by commodities is the focus of Sen’s (1979) ‘capability approach’

Understanding functionings of land required inductive approach and primary investigation was performed through focus group discussions with participants from eleven different countries, who are currently pursuing doctoral research at the University of Melbourne. A holistic list of nine fundamental functionings of land was obtained towards the end of these discussions, which are: (i) Secure means to basic ends; (ii) Self-identity; (iii) Social capital; (iv)Social equity; (v) Political empowerment; (vi) Power to take decisions on land matters; (vii) Family’s wellbeing; (viii) Personal comfort and convenience; and (ix) Psychological wellbeing

Introduction

Sen (1979) raises the question on equality (of what?) and argues that the definition of poverty shall be based on access to ‘basic capabilities’ and not ‘basic goods’. Examples of ‘basic capabilities’ include “the ability to meet one’s nutritional requirements, the wherewithal to be clothed and sheltered, the power to participate in the social life of the community” (Sen, 1979, p. 218). The achievement of these basic capabilities shall require food, clothes, shelter and societal linkages respectively.

In the context of Sen’s ‘capability approach’, it may be argued that the land (as a resource) offers functions that shall fulfil ‘basic capabilities’, and many more. The importance of land ownership is highlighted by George (1880) in his writing that “the ownership of land is the great fundamental fact which ultimately determines the social, the political, and consequently the intellectual and moral condition of a people. And it must be so. For land is the habitation of man, the storehouse upon which he must draw for all his needs, the material to which his labour must be applied for the supply of all his desires; for even the products of the sea cannot be taken, the light of the sun enjoyed, or any of the forces of nature utilized, without the use of land or its products.” Thus, land could be considered a ‘complete’ good that encompasses, partially of fully, functionings of almost all other resources. Although access to different ‘functionings’ certainly depends on individualistic ability of the landowner, thus defining the capability (Sen, 1985). This could include individuals’ physical, mental, financial, educational, social, political and other abilities.

The discussion on land ownership and its relevance for wellbeing is scattered under different strands of economics and social sciences including land economics, finance, real-estate, social justice, feminism and other similar fields. In the light of the discussion on ‘capability’, these discussions could be knitted together to create a fundamental list of functions of landownership. Although it is premature to state this but the ‘fundamental’ list could be useful in indexing the ‘capability’ of different units of the society, the smallest one being the individual landowner.

Differences in treatment given to private property rights in different countries would also create difference in the set of functionings achievable through ownership. Even within each country, different types of property title formats are practiced which bundle property rights differently, thus creating different functionings. Considering the diversity in political and legal systems, as well as differences in property title formats that are practiced in different parts of the world, it is concluded that absolute ownership of land offers maximum achievable set of functionings and any lesser bundle of rights shall generate functionings that will be subset to absolute ownership. Though property rights are typically interpreted by economists as private property rights, other forms, like community rights are important in many societies (Besley and Ghatak, 2010). While the major focus of this research is placed on private ownership of land, it is acknowledged that in some societies subjective wellbeing conjuncts with community ownership. Therefore, the scope of discussion in this research is broadened to include functionings offered to individuals operating under community ownership.

As mentioned earlier, the objective of this paper is to understand land using Sen’s capability approach’ and to identify various ‘functionings’ that land generates for individuals. It is acknowledged that due to heterogeneity in individual circumstances and subjective preferences of each landowner, the value of each functioning will vary for each individual landowner and the context of geography will further differentiate subjective values attached to respective functionings. That said, this research identifies the wide range of functionings associated with landownership, that in the view of the society, are important for the wellbeing of landowners, irrespective of subjective differences in value of each functioning. Findings from this research provide a list of fundamental functionings that are common across different geographies that differ in private property right regime, as well as in the social and political structure.

The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 discusses the theoretical framework and creates the basic argument about the importance of an ‘individual’ person and her wellbeing. The discussion proceeds to provide a critique of the traditional utilitarian approach to welfare and then explains the ‘capability approach’ by Amartya Sen. The literature also includes a brief discussion on the relationship of land ownership with the ‘wellbeing’ of an individual, which is the main objective of this research paper. Section 3 explains the method adopted for this research. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with participants from eleven countries were conducted and discussions were analysed using Qualitative Content Analysis on NVIVO. Nine fundamental functionings were identified which are generalizable across all countries although the level of importance of each function may vary. The relevance of this research and the potential for future research is also discussed in the concluding Section 4.