Prosperity Unbound

Guest Contribution by Rachel Beach

Microcredit and property rights reforms, how do they connect? The Panel Group was first asked to connect the dots between financial services to the poor and security of property in discussions with organizations such as the World Bank, Gates Foundation and International Trade Agency (ITA). The exercise brought to light a multiplicity of connections, and in the process we discovered that this is actually a very relevant and necessary discussion to promote. Indeed, it is a relationship whose identity is increasingly touched upon in current development debates.

An increasing number of articles and platforms address the importance of securing wealth bound up in physical real estate, small entrepreneurial activity and intellectual property as incentive for further investment and economic growth.  In a recent profiling by Fast Company, June Arunga – celebrated by the magazine as one of this year’s 100 Most Creative People – is asking a very common question but coming up with an answer at once banal and profound:

‘Why is Africa so poor?’ says the Kenyan, from her current home in Ghana… ‘What should be encouraged is the fundamental right of people to own land and the products of their labor, which are then recognized by courts, and can be exchanged at the market.” Asking for aid, she says, is part of the problem. “I doubt there is a parent that raises their child to become a beggar,” she says. “Gain respect. Keep your promises.”

Security and legal recognition of property for the poor is something development agencies are slowly waking up to. It is something De Soto recognized and has been both praised and vilified for – tapping into the wealth of the poor. One side criticizes him for finding another brilliant way to extort the poor, “formalizing their wealth” so it can be taxed by the government and their property sold to developers. The other side recognizes something elemental in development: access to credit and securing of property (i.e. not simply physical real estate but all forms of wealth) are essential. Between these two elements are a host of incentives. And their interplay entertains many fields of study: the psychologies of security and self-improvement, incentive to invest, the dynamic of trust and credibility between a State and its citizens, hope.

The connection between the credit-access and property-security is not merely curious, it is fundamental to development. In fact, it is a symbiotic relationship. Without a reasonable guarantee that property will be protected both from expropriation or theft, the acquisition and maintenance of investments and other assets in a given economy is illogical, as many an African dictator’s holding of properties abroad (read: securer states) and Swiss bank accounts will attest to. On the other side, without access to credit, the ability to invest is severely restricted.

Capitalism has struggled to find meaningful ways to bring the poorest brackets of society (and those operating in the “extra-legal” sectors due to any number of structural and financial barriers) into the market economy. Financial services for the poorer sectors look very different than the services to the wealthy. However, the risks they face, the way they operate, and types of basic services needed should not be treated as an exception to the standard middle-class or wealthy citizen’s fundamentals of wealth management and financial services. Indeed, the middle-class and wealthy are the minority in this world we live in.

Micro-credit is not simply a well-meaning, social business enterprise that should be patted on the back and politely applauded while we go about our business in the real world. Micro-credit is the type of financial service needed for a great majority of the world’s population. It is more than finding creative ways to “help the poor”. Micro-credit allows the impoverished to slowly rise out of a cycle of poverty. Securing of property rights for these small enterprises and private citizens gives owners legal, socially-recognized protection of their newly acquired parcels of wealth, however minute. Any high-school lecture about compound interest will attest to the benefits of savings and investment, however small one’s start. This creation of wealth then slowly builds on itself.

Neither Peru nor Bangladesh are anecdotes (as Peter Shaefer seems eager to claim in his Foreign Policy article). Yunus’ Grameen bank is expanding operations on five continents, including successful start-ups in the United States and the birth of one in Italy. Our work at Panel Group explores insecurity of property rights around the world – as Elena did in Peru during the 1990s – partnering with municipalities and governments to strengthen, streamline, and even create socially, legally recognizable ownership of physical property (i.e. real estate) where none existed before. Without the dual-expansion of financial services for the poor and security of their assets, the poor will remain in a cycle of poverty.

Guest Contribution by Rachel Beach

Judge Sonya Sotomayor may be sailing through the senate hearings given her highly qualified track record, a White House and Senate majority in her favor, and appeal as the first Latina judge, but one might find some relief in the expression of a few well-placed reservations.  In paradox to her background of civil rights service and concern for the constitutional protections afforded to all citizens, Sotomayor’s track record on property rights should register concern among the underprivileged and  politically weak.  Her highly controversial decision in the 2006 case of Didden v. Village of Port Chester ruled against land owners Bart Didden and Dominick Bologna whose property was condemned after they refused to pay a local developer’s extortion demands. Sotomayor’s decision went beyond the procedural grounds of the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, allowing the expropriation of private property for the benefit of other private interests.

Should Sotomayor reach the Supreme Court, it appears that expropriation and extortion for personal gain – if the party in question is politically-connected and affluent – can hope for federal backing.  If a developer can convince the city to rezone an area for redevelopment, and has legal ground to request condemnation of private property for his own gain then the disenfranchised should have great reason to fear her decisions.  Sotomayor’s decision exacerbates problems of the insecurity of property, and those whose property is most likely to be expropriated inhabit the lowest strata of American renters and home-owners: tenants in the ghettos.  They suffer from semi-“unreal estate”.

Here is the account of a lady who went from poor tenant to homeless to middle-class lady in Washington D.C. after struggling with the mayor’s office for years to gain the rights to purchase the condemned apartment she was renting.  Deborah was once one of those who inhabited “unreal estate”.  Her’s is one of the rare stories of the poor successfully fighting for their rights (using the right-of-first-refusal under D.C. property laws regarding tenants) and gaining ownership.  However, Sotomayer’s ruling would make  the struggles of homeowners like Deborah more difficult.  The logic of the ruling suggests that developers have the power to deny rights to tenants, not for public gain, but for the private gain of the developer over tenants.  Granted, we do not know all the details of the ruling or the case, but as the most probable soon-to-be Justice of the Supreme Court, Sotomayor’s decision seems rather discouraging,.

The current economic crisis is a property right issues (i.e. an unstable valuation of the real estate market), but a clear and established property right system especially for private individuals can be a way out of this current mess and prevents further crisis. Like in the case of Deborah, ownership of property motivates investment and entrepreneurial ingenuity which is much needed in today’s economy. Sotomayer’s ruling is indeed a red flag to such success stories as that of Deborah’s.

I recently returned from a whirlwind weekend at the FreedomFest in Las Vegas.  It is increasingly evident that Prosperity Unbound appeals to a larger and wider range of audiences, especially after the housing market collapse. Given the 1.5 million foreclosures in the United States in the first half of this year alone, with one in eight Americans either late on their payments or already facing foreclosure, many people are wondering how we got there. Many others ask whether the stimulus packages and administration’s approaches are really confronting the root of the problem. There seems to be no end in sight, and a great number (29%) of credit-worthy borrowers with fixed-rate home loans are among those suffering from the downward pressure on house prices. If ever there was a time to establish a more secure valuation of the underlying asset, the time is now.

Walking around Las Vegas, I saw some of the grandiose edifices under construction and left over from the real estate boom now bowing to the economy’s will. Cranes were scattered across the landscape like giant herons frozen in time. Then I discovered a side story. Scattered throughout the opulence and malls were little shops, independently owned and operated. They had been established decades ago, selling their wares and $1 bottles of water (versus $4 at posh cafés). Many resisted pressure from real estate developers and kept their specks of territory among giants. The big real-estate dollar signs that had drawn speculators to the city five years ago who are now fleeing with tails between their legs.

FreedomFest, a celebrated venue for open-market debate and thinking (with over 1,500 attendees) also seemed this year to be a popular place for talking about illiquid real estate. I presented my book and talked about my formula for prosperity for the worlds’ poor and its success rate. Michael Strong, CEO of FLOW, graciously introduced me and my work. I also expounded further on my methodology and how I apply it as a private social entrepreneur with Panel Group.  The broad interest from diverse attendees, highlighted the relevance of the methodology outlined at Prosperity Unbound, beginning with institutional economics, finance, and practically explaining how the social contract and property markets evolve as well as how we can reduce the risk for property becoming illiquid.

I had the opportunity to engage in stimulating conversations with Richard Rahn senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, John Fund from the Wall Street Journal, Barrons’ economics editor Gene Epstein, and venture capitalist Jo Pihl.

Topics ranged from evolution of mankind to evolution of markets.  Michael Shermer, a scientist, the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society and a columnist for Scientific American, delved into the evolution of humankind and societies honoring Darwin and his personal journey. Others addressed how people choose to handle their wealth, drifting into an ongoing debate about how much governance is needed for effective enforcement of contracts. Ironically, in my mind, it is the proponents of a “hands-off government” who (recognizing it or not) most desire effective government for the purpose of ensuring the security of their private wealth, property, and person … both from government expropriation and from the abuse of other citizens. The logic leads us into the arena of policy-making, in relation to the management of private wealth and property. Julian Morris of the International Policy Network, Steve Forbes of Forbes Magazine, John Mackey of Whole Foods, and others presented ways policy-making can harm markets and discussed their outlook for the Global Economy.

Then, of course, there was Yoga every morning with Gurucharan Khalsa and dancing to the Beatles at the closing gala of FF.  All in all, a good weekend.

The Bank of Oliver Twist was posted by: lettrist on: June 26, 2009

URL: http://utopiaorbust.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/the-bank-of-oliver-twist/

Guest Contributor: Rachel Beach

Following the logic of Amartya Sen in Development as Freedom, individual property rights in a transparent system is a fundamental means as well as an end to development.  The Lettrist (blogger) is right to remind us that “the poor have always had ‘sizeable amount of assets’”.  The point is to find a way to secure their assets for their own benefit.  For many, one of their most valuable assets, land, is not secure.  Unable to use it as collateral, the poor lose one of their only means to access credit.  Mohammed Yunus, founder of the ever growing micro-credit banking movement, realized how critical access to credit is to upward mobility of the poor.  Just imagine your life without credit cards, access to loans, or any other means of credit. 

There is a plethora of property titling and land reform regimes gone wrong.  Think Zimbabwe.  In the wake of Peru’s achievements, the World Bank and many other well-meaning development agencies have bungled property titling projects by seeing property rights as a panacea for all ills. 

The problem, as Lettrist was right to point out, is looking at “titling” as a solution in a vacuum … a problem that pervades much development work today.  He cannot, however deny the unique successes of Peru.  I understand that advocates such as DeSoto invite strong criticism, but strong property rights is a cornerstone of development.  This is what Elena Panaritis, when at the World Bank and together with the Peruvian government carried out and proved in Peru (as outlined in her book Prosperity Unbound).  The reforms have been noted world wide for a specific reason.  They were not carried out in a vacuum.  Panaritis studied the political institutions, social motivations, and historical backdrop of the property titling mess, using a method she calls Reality Check Analysis.  Elena and her team went door-to-door surveying potential participants and proscribed a complete overhaul the agencies responsible for registering property.  Under a succession of presidents and parliaments, reforms responded to growing public demands for recognition of property.  It was not something foisted upon them, nor was it gentrification.  The reforms followed a specific sequencing of policy and events designed to address problems unique to Peru’s history, regulation, institutions.  This generated their rare success in property rights reform. 

Lettrist must not be aware of the actual benefits a properly-enacted property rights reform given his statement that “no one can be sure if land titling would benefit the poor at all”.  The results spoke for themselves in Peru.  The reforms were designed to cater not to large scale developers, but the poor and middle class who had experienced long-term insecurity of property.  Within three years the markets welcomed seven million new players.  Security of private ownership increased by 94%, initial property values increased by 42%, personal investment [i.e. home improvements, extensions] increased by more than 72%, the probability of child labor among participants decreased by more than 28%.  These are the positive elements of a reform designed to bring excluded sections of a society into the formal market. 

On the other hand the Lettrist was very right in saying that “capitalism has no serious strategy for reaching the poor in the extra-legal sector”.  Those in the extra-legal sector are entrepreneurs.  They simply lack access to formal markets and capital, and create their own informal markets.  Security of property rights is the fundamental bridge to the formal sector.  It provides a capitalist answer for bringing informal activity into the formal economy.

Appropriate community-based property rights systems empower citizens.  Rather than being a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”, they give both citizens a restored trust and mutual gain: the government gains revenue streams, but in return has a responsibility to provide public goods which citizens had previously been deprived of such as access to water, electricity, and roads.  Entrepreneurs can register businesses and invest in the formal economy.  They can secure loans and improve their lives and livelihood, assured that all their efforts will not be swept away by arbitrary expropriation.  Entrepreneurs in the informal sector function, but not efficiently.  Panaritis was not primarily concerned with preventing extra-legals from “bringing down the game” but bringing excluded entrepreneurs into the game.  The point being that as the percentage of citizens forced to live in a semi-informal state (parts of their daily lives secured in the legal sector, and parts outside where they cannot find access) increases, the legitimacy of a government decreases.  If the current government has not found a way to secure the property and person of a large portion of its citizens, nor provide public services to them, nor include them in formal market structures, it has failed to fulfill its role.  It is only expected that citizens would seek an alternative governing body i.e. Abimael Guzman, founder of the Sendero Luminoso aka The Shining Path.