1932

Abstract

This review seeks to establish takings as a respected field of sociolegal inquiry. In the legal academy, the term takings has become synonymous with constitutional takings. When defined more broadly, however, a taking is when a person, entity, or state confiscates, destroys, or diminishes rights to property without the informed consent of rights holders. Adopting a more expansive conception of takings lays the groundwork for a robust interdisciplinary conversation about the diverse manifestations and impacts of involuntary property loss, where some of the most valuable contributions are made by people who do not consider themselves property scholars. This review starts the conversation by bringing together the empirical literature on takings published between 2000 and 2015 and scattered in the fields of law, economics, political science, sociology, psychology, geography, and anthropology. Most importantly, a robust understanding of property's multiple values is required to fully comprehend the magnitude of the loss associated with takings, and this creates a space in which scholars can rescue property's political, cultural, emotional, and social value from the sizeable shadow cast by the overly dominant focus on its economic value.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-084457
2016-10-27
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/12/1/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-084457.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-084457&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Acevedo JF. 2017. Dignity takings in the criminal law of seventeenth-century England and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Chic.-Kent Law Rev. 92:3In press [Google Scholar]
  2. Albert CD. 2017. No place to call home: the Iraqi Kurds under Arabization, Saddam Hussein, and ISIS. Chic.-Kent Law Rev. 92:3In press [Google Scholar]
  3. Alexander A, Miller R. 2017. Counting the costs of mass supervision: dignity taking and the post prison experience. Chic.-Kent Law Rev 92:3In press [Google Scholar]
  4. Alston LJ, Libecap GD, Schneider R. 1996. The determinants and impact of property rights: land titles on the Brazilian frontier. J. Law Econ. Organ. 12:125–61 [Google Scholar]
  5. Arezki R, Deininger K, Selod H. 2015. What drives the global “land rush”?. World Bank Econ. Rev. 29:2207–33 [Google Scholar]
  6. Atuahene B. 2006. Land titling: a mode of privatization with the potential to deepen democracy. St. Louis Univ. Law J. 50:761–82 [Google Scholar]
  7. Atuahene B. 2009. Property rights & the demands of transformation. Mich. J. Int. Law 31:765–819 [Google Scholar]
  8. Atuahene B. 2011. Paying for the past: redressing the legacy of land dispossession in South Africa. Law Soc. Rev. 45:4955–89 [Google Scholar]
  9. Atuahene B. 2014a. The importance of conversation in transitional justice: a study of land restitution in South Africa. Law Soc. Inq. 39:4902–37 [Google Scholar]
  10. Atuahene B. 2014b. We Want What's Ours: Learning from South Africa's Land Restitution Program Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
  11. Atuahene B. 2016. Dignity takings and dignity restoration: creating a new theoretical framework for understanding involuntary property loss and the remedies required. Law Soc. Inq. 41:3In press [Google Scholar]
  12. Avila E, Rose MH. 2009. Race, culture, politics, and urban renewal: an introduction. J. Urban Hist. 35:3335–47 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bachar G. 2017. Restricting access to tort claims—a dignity taking? Lessons from the Israeli-Palestinian experience. Chic.-Kent Law Rev. 92:3In press [Google Scholar]
  14. Baer AS. 2017. Dignity restoration and the Chicago Police Torture Reparations Ordinance. Chic.-Kent Law Rev. 92:3In press [Google Scholar]
  15. Baker M, Miceli T, Sirmans CF, Turnbull GK. 2001. Property rights by squatting: land ownership risk and adverse possession statutes. Land Econ 77:3360–70 [Google Scholar]
  16. Becher DL. 2014. Private Property and Public Power: Eminent Domain in Philadelphia Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
  17. Beck T, Ghosh MG. 2000. Common property resources and the poor: findings from West Bengal. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 35:3147–53 [Google Scholar]
  18. Berman v. Parker 348 U.S. 26 1954.
  19. Besley T. 1995. Property rights and investment incentives: theory and evidence from Ghana. J. Polit. Econ. 103:5903–37 [Google Scholar]
  20. Beyene F. 2009. Property rights conflict, customary institutions and the state: the case of agro-pastoralists in Mieso District, Eastern Ethiopia. J. Mod. Afr. Stud. 47:2213–39 [Google Scholar]
  21. Boone C. 2009. Electoral populism where property rights are weak: land politics in contemporary sub-Saharan Africa. Comp. Polit. 41:2183–201 [Google Scholar]
  22. Braverman I. 2007. Powers of illegality: house demolitions and resistance in East Jerusalem. Law Soc. Inq. 32:2333–72 [Google Scholar]
  23. Braverman I. 2008. “The tree is the enemy soldier”: a sociolegal making of war landscapes in the occupied West Bank. Law Soc. Rev. 42:3449–82 [Google Scholar]
  24. Brito TL, Pate DJ, Wong JS. 2015. “I do for my kids”: negotiating race and racial inequality in family court. Fordham Law Rev 83:63027–52 [Google Scholar]
  25. Brophy AL. 2016. When more than property is lost: the dignitary losses and gains in the Tulsa Riot of 1921. Law Soc. Inq. 41:3In press [Google Scholar]
  26. Burby RJ. 2006. Hurricane Katrina and the paradoxes of government disaster policy: bringing about wise governmental decisions for hazardous areas. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 604:171–91 [Google Scholar]
  27. Byrne JP. 1995. Ten arguments for the abolition of the regulatory takings doctrine. Ecol. Law Q. 22:89–142 [Google Scholar]
  28. Carlson AE, Pollak D. 2001. Takings on the ground: how the Supreme Court's takings jurisprudence affects local land use decisions. U.C. Davis Law Rev. 35:103–69 [Google Scholar]
  29. Chapoto A, Jayne TS, Mason NM. 2011. Widows' land security in the era of HIV/AIDS: panel survey evidence from Zambia. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 59:3511–47 [Google Scholar]
  30. Cohen F. 1931. The ethical basis of legal criticism. Yale Law J 41:2201–20 [Google Scholar]
  31. Cohen D, Radnoff B. 1998. Regulation, takings, compensation, and the environment: an economic perspective. The Wealth of Forests: Markets, Regulation, and Sustainable Forestry C Tollefson 299–341 Vancouver: UBC Press [Google Scholar]
  32. Corbae D, Quintin E. 2015. Leverage and the foreclosure crisis. J. Polit. Econ. 123:11–65 [Google Scholar]
  33. Dagan H, Kreitner R, Kricheli-Katz T. 2015. Legal theory for legal empiricists. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2626335
  34. Datta A. 2012. “Mongrel city”: cosmopolitan neighbourliness in a Delhi squatter settlement. Antipode 44:3745–63 [Google Scholar]
  35. Davis DS, Lu H. 2003. Property in transition: conflicts over ownership in post-socialist Shanghai. Eur. J. Sociol. 44:177–99 [Google Scholar]
  36. Dearden RG. 1995. Arbitration of expropriation disputes between an investor and the state under the North American Free Trade Agreement. J. World Trade 29:113–27 [Google Scholar]
  37. Deere CD, Leon ML. 2011. Empowering Women: Land and Property Rights in Latin America Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. Pittsburgh Press
  38. Deininger K, Ali DA. 2008. Do overlapping land rights reduce agricultural investment? Evidence from Uganda. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 90:4869–82 [Google Scholar]
  39. Demiroglu C, Dudley E, James CM. 2014. State foreclosure laws and the incidence of mortgage default. J. Law Econ. 57:1225–80 [Google Scholar]
  40. de Soto H. 1989. The Other Path: The Invisible Revolution in the Third World New York: Harper & Row
  41. de Soto H. 2000. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else New York: Basic Books
  42. Di Tella R, Galiani S, Schargrodsky E. 2007. The formation of beliefs: evidence from the allocation of land titles to squatters. Q. J. Econ. 122:1209–41 [Google Scholar]
  43. Do Q, Iyer L. 2008. Land titling and rural transition in Vietnam. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 56:3531–79 [Google Scholar]
  44. Dolan v. City of Tigard 512 U.S. 374 1994.
  45. Durand-Lasserve A. 2006. Market-driven evictions and displacements: implications for the perpetuation of informal settlements in developing cities. Informal Settlements: A Perpetual Challenge? M Huchzermeyer, A Karam 202–27 Cape Town: Univ. Cape Town Press [Google Scholar]
  46. ElHadary YAE, Obeng-Odoom F. 2012. Conventions, changes, and contradictions in land governance in Africa: the story of land grabbing in North Sudan and Ghana. Afr. Today 59:258–78 [Google Scholar]
  47. Ellickson RC. 1986. Adverse possession and perpetuities law: two dents in the libertarian model of property rights. Wash. Univ. Law Q. 64:723–37 [Google Scholar]
  48. Engel S, Lyle T. 2017. Fucking with dignity: public sex, queer intimate kinship, and the AIDS epidemic bathhouse closures as a dignity taking. Chic.-Kent Law Rev. 92:3In press [Google Scholar]
  49. Epstein RA. 1985. Takings Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  50. Epstein RA. 1986. Past and future: the temporal dimension in the law of property. Wash. Univ. Law Q. 64:667–722 [Google Scholar]
  51. Erlanger HS, Garth B, Larson JE, Mertz E, Nourse V, Wilkins DB. 2005. Is it time for a new legal realism?. Wis. Law Rev. 2005:2335–63 [Google Scholar]
  52. Falah G-W. 2004. War, peace and land seizure in Palestine's border area. Third World Q 25:5955–75 [Google Scholar]
  53. Fennell LA. 2006. Efficient trespass: the case for “bad faith” adverse possession. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 100:1037–96 [Google Scholar]
  54. Fenster M. 2004. Takings formalism and regulatory formulas: exactions and the consequences of clarity. Calif. Law Rev. 92:3609–81 [Google Scholar]
  55. Field E. 2005. Property rights and investment in urban slums. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 3:2–3279–90 [Google Scholar]
  56. Field E. 2007. Entitled to work: urban property rights and labor supply in Peru. Q. J. Econ. 122:41561–602 [Google Scholar]
  57. Fischel WA. 1995. Regulatory Takings: Law, Economics, and Politics Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  58. Fitzpatrick D, Barnes S. 2010. The relative resilience of property: first possession and order without law in East Timor. Law Soc. Rev. 44:2205–38 [Google Scholar]
  59. Frye T. 2006. Original sin, good works, and property rights in Russia. World Polit 58:4479–504 [Google Scholar]
  60. Fullilove MT. 2004. Root Shock: How Tearing Up City Neighborhoods Hurts America, and What We Can Do about It New York: One World/Ballantine Books
  61. Garnett NS. 2006. The neglected political economy of eminent domain. Mich. Law Rev. 105:1101–50 [Google Scholar]
  62. Gelbman A, Keinan O. 2007. National and transnational borderlanders' attitudes towards the security fence between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. GeoJournal 68:4279–91 [Google Scholar]
  63. Gerardi K, Lehnert A, Sherlund SM, Willen P. 2008. Making sense of the subprime crisis Work. Pap. No. 2009-2, Fed. Reserv. Bank Atlanta, GA
  64. Gilbert A. 2002. On the mystery of capital and the myths of Hernando de Soto: What difference does legal title make?. Int. Dev. Plan. Rev. 24:11–19 [Google Scholar]
  65. Gilbert A, Ward PM. 1985. Housing, the State, and the Poor: Policy and Practice in Three Latin American Cities Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  66. Gotham KF. 2001. A city without slums: urban renewal, public housing, and downtown revitalization in Kansas City, Missouri. Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 60:1285–316 [Google Scholar]
  67. Gowda MN, Savadatti PM. 2004. CPRs and rural poor: study in North Karnataka. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 39:333752–57 [Google Scholar]
  68. Guzmán-Rodríguez D. 2017. Dignity takings and dignity restoration: a case study of the Colombian land restitution program. Chic.-Kent Law Rev. 92:3In press [Google Scholar]
  69. Hartog H. 2016. Marriage is an honorable estate. Law Soc. Inq. 41:3 In press [Google Scholar]
  70. He S, Xue D. 2014. Identity building and communal resistance against landgrabs in Wukan Village, China. Curr. Anthropol. 55:S9S126–37 [Google Scholar]
  71. Helmholz RH. 1983. Adverse possession and subjective intent. Wash. Univ. Law Q. 61:21–64 [Google Scholar]
  72. Henderson T-N. 2017. Dignity takings and dignity restoration examined through the lens of American chattel slavery. Chic.-Kent Law Rev. 92:3In press [Google Scholar]
  73. Herzfeld M. 2010. Engagement, gentrification, and the neoliberal hijacking of history. Curr. Anthropol. 51:S2S259–67 [Google Scholar]
  74. Hulsebosch D. 2016. Exile, voice, and loyalism: dignity takings and the American Revolution. Law Soc. Inq. 41:3In press [Google Scholar]
  75. Jacoby HG, Minten B. 2007. Is land titling in sub-Saharan Africa cost-effective? Evidence from Madagascar. World Bank Econ. Rev. 21:3461–85 [Google Scholar]
  76. Jimenez E. 1982. The value of squatter dwellings in developing countries. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 30:4739–52 [Google Scholar]
  77. Joo T. 2017. “A larger strategy”? Dignity takings, urban renewal, and Sacramento's lost Japantown. Chic.-Kent Law Rev. 92:3In press [Google Scholar]
  78. Joireman SF. 2008. The mystery of capital formation in Sub-Saharan Africa: women, property rights and customary law. World Dev 36:71233–46 [Google Scholar]
  79. Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1984. Choices, values and frames. Am. Psychol. 39:4341–50 [Google Scholar]
  80. Kahrl A. 2012. The Land Was Ours: African American Beaches from Jim Crow to the Sunbelt South Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  81. Kahrl A. 2017. Unconscionable: tax delinquency sales as a form of dignity taking. Chic.-Kent Law Rev. 92:3 In press [Google Scholar]
  82. Kaiser J. 2017. Making the underclass: deprivation, degradation, and America's hidden penal regime. Chic.-Kent Law Rev. 92:3In press [Google Scholar]
  83. Kalman L. 1986. Legal Realism at Yale, 1927–1960 Chapel Hill: Univ. N.C. Press
  84. Kamei S. 2011. Customary inheritance practices and women among the Kabui Naga of Manipur. Indian Anthropol 41:155–69 [Google Scholar]
  85. Kedar A. 2016. Dignity taking and dispossession in Israel. Law Soc. Inq. 41:3In press [Google Scholar]
  86. Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 2005.
  87. Lanjouw JO, Levy PI. 2002. Untitled: a study of formal and informal property rights in urban Ecuador. Econ. J. 112:482986–1019 [Google Scholar]
  88. Llewellyn KN. 1931. Some realism about realism: responding to Dean Pound. Harvard Law Rev 44:81222–64 [Google Scholar]
  89. López-Morales EJ. 2010. Real estate market, state-entrepreneurialism and urban policy in the “gentrification by ground rent dispossession” of Santiago de Chile. J. Lat. Am. Geogr. 9:1145–73 [Google Scholar]
  90. Macaulay S. 2005. The new versus the old legal realism: “Things ain't what they used to be.”. Wis. Law Rev. 2005:2365–403 [Google Scholar]
  91. Macaulay S, Mertz E. 2013. New legal realism and the empirical turn in law. Law and Social Theory R Banakar, M Travers. Oxford: Hart [Google Scholar]
  92. Merrill TW. 1984. Property rules, liability rules, and adverse possession. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 79:1122–54 [Google Scholar]
  93. Miceli TJ, Segerson K. 1994. Regulatory takings: When should compensation be paid?. J. Legal Stud. 23:2749–76 [Google Scholar]
  94. Miceli TJ, Sirmans CF. 1995. An economic theory of adverse possession. Int. Rev. Law Econ. 15:2161–73 [Google Scholar]
  95. Michelman FI. 1967. Property, utility, and fairness: comments on the ethical foundations of “just compensation” law. Harvard Law Rev 80:61165–258 [Google Scholar]
  96. Mitchell TW. 2001. From reconstruction to deconstruction: undermining black landownership, political independence, and community through partition sales of tenancies in common. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 95:505–80 [Google Scholar]
  97. Mitchell TW. 2005. Destabilizing the normalization of rural black land loss: a critical role for legal empiricism. Wis. Law Rev. 2005:2557–615 [Google Scholar]
  98. Morriss AP. 2009. Symbol or substance? An empirical assessment of state responses to Kelo. Supreme Court Econ. Rev. 17:1237–78 [Google Scholar]
  99. Nadler J, Diamond SS. 2008. Eminent domain and the psychology of property rights: proposed use, subjective attachment, and taker identity. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 5:4713–49 [Google Scholar]
  100. Nadler J, Diamond SS, Patton MM. 2008. Government takings of private property. Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy N Persily, J Citrin, P Egan 286–309 Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  101. Netter JM, Hersch PL, Manson WD. 1986. An economic analysis of adverse possession statutes. Int. Rev. Law Econ. 6:2217–28 [Google Scholar]
  102. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission 483 U.S. 825 1987.
  103. Nourse V, Shaffer G. 2009. Varieties of new legal realism: Can a new world order prompt a new legal theory. Cornell Law Rev 95:61–137 [Google Scholar]
  104. Omura M. 2008. Property rights and natural resource management incentives: Do transferability and formality matter?. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 90:41143–55 [Google Scholar]
  105. Ossei-Owusu S. 2017. The good state giveth and taketh away: race, class, and urban hospital closings. Chic.-Kent Law Rev. 92:3In press [Google Scholar]
  106. Payne G, Durand-Lasserve A, Rakodi C. 2009. The limits of land titling and home ownership. Environ. Urban 21:2443–62 [Google Scholar]
  107. Pearce F. 2012. The Landgrabbers: The New Fight Over Who Owns the Earth London: Transworld
  108. Peñalver EM, Katyal SK. 2010. Property Outlaws: How Squatters, Pirates, and Protesters Improve the Law of Ownership New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  109. Peng Y. 2004. Kinship networks and entrepreneurs in China's transitional economy. Am. J. Sociol. 109:51045–74 [Google Scholar]
  110. Peters PE. 2002. Bewitching land: the role of land disputes in converting kin to strangers and in class formation in Malawi. J. S. Afr. Stud. 28:1155–78 [Google Scholar]
  111. Phillips VF. 2017. Beyond trademark: the Washington Redskins case and the search for dignity. Chic.-Kent Law Rev. 92:3In press [Google Scholar]
  112. Pils E. 2016. Resisting dignity takings in China. Law Soc. Inq. 41:3In press [Google Scholar]
  113. Radin MJ. 1982. Property and personhood. Stanford Law Rev 34:957–1015 [Google Scholar]
  114. Radley-Gardner O. 2005. Civilized squatting. Oxford J. Leg. Stud. 25:4727–47 [Google Scholar]
  115. Rao N. 2005. Displacement from land: case of Santhal Parganas. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 40:414439–42 [Google Scholar]
  116. Rathod J, Nadas R. 2017. Damaged bodies, damaged lives: immigrant worker injuries as dignity takings. Chic.-Kent Law Rev. 92:3In press [Google Scholar]
  117. Reich CA. 1964. The new property. Yale Law J 73:5733–87 [Google Scholar]
  118. Reich JA, Wadsworth M. 2008. Out of the floodwaters, but not yet on dry ground: experiences of displacement and adjustment in adolescents and their parents following Hurricane Katrina. Child. Youth Environ. 18:1354–70 [Google Scholar]
  119. Richland JB. 2016. Talking jurisdiction, taking dignity in Hopi Country. Law Soc. Inq. 41:3In press [Google Scholar]
  120. Rosado Marzán C. 2017. Dignity takings and “wage theft.”. Chic.-Kent Law Rev. 92:3In press [Google Scholar]
  121. Rose CM. 1996. Takings, federalism, norms. Yale Law J 105:41121–52 [Google Scholar]
  122. Rose CM. 2016. A shadow of dignity takings: racially restrictive covenants in the United States. Law Soc. Inq. 41:3In press [Google Scholar]
  123. Rosenblum D. 2015. Unintended consequences of women's inheritance rights on female mortality in India. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 63:2223–48 [Google Scholar]
  124. Rugh JS, Albright L, Massey DS. 2015. Race space and cumulative disadvantage: a case study of the subprime lending collapse. Soc. Probl. 62:186–218 [Google Scholar]
  125. Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R. 1988. Status quo bias in decision making. J. Risk Uncertain. 1:7–59 [Google Scholar]
  126. Schlegel JH. 1979. American legal realism and empirical social science: from the Yale experience. Buffalo Law Rev 28:459–586 [Google Scholar]
  127. Schweigert T. 2006. Land title, tenure security, investment and farm output: evidence from Guatemala. J. Dev. Areas 40:1115–26 [Google Scholar]
  128. Sharp EB, Haider-Markel D. 2008. At the invitation of the court: eminent domain reform in state legislatures in the wake of the Kelo decision. Publius 38:3556–75 [Google Scholar]
  129. Shaw MP. 2017. Creating the urban educational desert through school closures and dignity taking. Chic.-Kent Law Rev. 92:3In press [Google Scholar]
  130. Simmons BA. 2005. Rules over real estate: trade, territorial conflict, and international borders as institution. J. Confl. Resolut. 49:6823–48 [Google Scholar]
  131. Singer J. 2000a. Property and social relations: from title to entitlement. Property and Values: Alternatives to Public and Private Ownership C Geisler, G Daneker 3–20 Washington, DC: Island [Google Scholar]
  132. Singer JW. 2000b. Entitlement: The Paradoxes of Property New Haven, NJ: Yale Univ. Press
  133. Stake JE. 2000. The uneasy case for adverse possession. Georget. Law J. 89:2419–74 [Google Scholar]
  134. Suchman MC, Mertz E. 2010. Toward a new legal empiricism: empirical legal studies and new legal realism. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 6:555–79 [Google Scholar]
  135. Sugrue TJ. 2014. The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  136. Sullivan E. 2014. Halfway homeowners: eviction and forced relocation in a Florida manufactured home park. Law Soc. Inq. 39:2474–97 [Google Scholar]
  137. Swaminathan H, Bhatla N, Chakraborty S. 2009. Women's property rights and HIV/AIDS in India. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 44:17101–8 [Google Scholar]
  138. Thaler R. 1980. Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1:39–60 [Google Scholar]
  139. Theisen OM. 2008. Blood and soil? Resource scarcity and internal armed conflict revisited. J. Peace Res. 45:6801–18 [Google Scholar]
  140. Tir J. 2003. Averting armed international conflicts through state-to-state territorial transfers. J. Polit. 65:41235–57 [Google Scholar]
  141. Tress G, Tress B, Fry G. 2005. Clarifying integrative research concepts in landscape ecology. Landsc. Ecol. 20:4479–93 [Google Scholar]
  142. Unruh JD. 2001. Postwar land dispute resolution: land tenure and the peace process in Mozambique. Int. J. World Peace 18:33–29 [Google Scholar]
  143. Van der Walt AJ. 1999. Constitutional Property Clauses: A Comparative Analysis Cape Town: Juta/Kluwer Law Int.
  144. Van Gelder J-L. 2010. Tales of deviance and control: on space, rules, and law in squatter settlements. Law Soc. Rev. 44:2239–68 [Google Scholar]
  145. Van Tassel E. 2004. Credit access and transferable land rights. Oxf. Econ. Pap. 56:1151–66 [Google Scholar]
  146. Varley A. 1987. The relationship between tenure legalization and housing improvements: evidence from Mexico City. Dev. Change 18:3463–81 [Google Scholar]
  147. Varley A. 2010. Modest expectations: gender and property rights in urban Mexico. Law Soc. Rev. 44:167–100 [Google Scholar]
  148. Veraart W. 2016. Dignity taking and the restitution of property rights in the Netherlands and in France after WWII. Law Soc. Inq. 41:3In press [Google Scholar]
  149. Verdery K. 2003. The Vanishing Hectare: Property and Value in Postsocialist Transylvania Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
  150. Villarreal A. 2004. The social ecology of rural violence: land scarcity, the organization of agricultural production, and the presence of the state. Am. J. Sociol. 110:2313–48 [Google Scholar]
  151. Ward PM. 2012. “A patrimony for the children”: low-income homeownership and housing (im)mobility in Latin American cities. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 102:61489–510 [Google Scholar]
  152. Ward PM, de Souza F, Giusti C, Larson JE. 2011. El título en la mano: the impact of titling programs on low-income housing in Texas colonias. Law Soc. Inq. 36:11–82 [Google Scholar]
  153. Williamson CR, Kerekes CB. 2011. Securing private property: formal versus informal institutions. J. Law Econ. 54:3537–72 [Google Scholar]
  154. Woods D. 2003. The tragedy of the cocoa pod: rent-seeking, land and ethnic conflict in Ivory Coast. J. Mod. Afr. Stud. 41:4641–55 [Google Scholar]
  155. Yuille L. 2017. Dignity takings in gangland's suburban frontier. Chic.-Kent Law Rev. 92:3In press [Google Scholar]
  156. Zhang T, Zhao X. 2014. Do kinship networks strengthen private property? Evidence from rural China. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 11:3505–40 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-084457
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-084457
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error