The paper "Property and Political Economy - Land as a Form of Property" is a good example of a literature review on macro and microeconomics. De Soto (2000, p. 35) used a very methodical and analytical approach to address the issue of land as a form of property. Though his postulations and ideologies were considered a little controversial, they gained him fame and this raised a lot of debate among various scholars and economists across the globe pertaining to the issue of land and property. De Soto's work is just one of the many documented among the neo-classical economist's view of the land and property issue.
George (1887, p. 107) is also one of the economics who have addressed the land question, property, and tax in the past. Other economists (predominantly political economists) however, had their own school of thought. To them, land and property were placed on different pedestals, and issues concerning either dealt with separately. This essay seeks not to clear the contention, but to provide an appraisal and an analysis of both sides. It shows how each side portrays the issue of land and property. The Neoclassical economists These economists were more liberal than their counterparts and mostly their views on many issues affecting the economies of different nations across the globe differed and were considered to be controversial.
However, they gained a lot of prominences because their way and line of thought were mostly in tandem with the expectations and tribulations that the people (especially the poor) had. A classic example of this is through the works of De Soto. De Soto was among the most popular economists in the united states following his stand on the concept of land and property. Land as a form of property According to De Soto, and many other neo-classical economists who did not quite gain as much fame but who, nonetheless shared this opinion, the land was supposed to be treated as property.
The property was subject to taxation from the properties act but the land did not receive such form of treatment. People (the poor) who did not own any land did not have any means to access any form of capital because, clearly, they could not afford to put up anything as a form of security.
In the stipulations of De Soto, even the ‘ poor’ people who might own some form or piece of land are only described as being poor only on paper, whereas their status is absolutely different.
Anderson, T nd, ‘Some thoughts on method in political economy’, Journal of Australian
political economy, no. 54, pp. 135-145.
Bush, R, Bujra, J & Littlejohn, G 2011, ‘The accumulation of dispossession’, Review of African
Political Economy, vol.38, no.128, pp.187-192.
Castles et al 2011, ‘Karl Polanyi’s Great Transformation as a Framework for understanding Neo-
Liberal Globalization’, Social Transformation and International Migration in the 21st
Century Working Paper 1, viewed 6 November 2013,
De Soto, H 2000, ‘This Land Is Your Land: A Conversation with Hernando de Soto,’ World
policy journal, vol. 28, no.2, pp. 35-40.
Harvey, D 2008, ‘The right to the city’, New left review, vol. 53, pp. 23-40.
Sitwell, F nd, ‘Marketing the environment’, Journal of Australasian Political economy, no. 68,
Treagold, M, L & Pullen, J, M nd, ‘Henry George in northern new south Wales newspaper
account of two lectures’, viewed 6 November 2013,