Blog
Property rights Chinese style (2)
23rd November 2012
Nearly two years ago I blogged on Property Rights Chinese style which featured a developer demolishing the bottom six floors of an apartment block, leaving just enough of the structure so that the seventh floor (owned by someone else not wanting to sell) would not fall down. The comment was made that there was very loose controls on regulating investment (and health and safety) and this led to outcomes that would not be seen in most developed economies. Since then, government rules and controls have become more strict, and now to the point where property rights are so sacred that we again see outcomes that we don't see elsewhere!
The house below in the Zhejiang province of China is an example of a "nail house", so named after nails that are very difficult to move from a piece of wood. The house sits in the way of a road that has been built to link with a railway station. It is now illegal to demolish any property in China without the owners agreement and this seems fair enough if it is a private business that wants to use the property. However, is it different if it is the government that wants to use your property for something that will benefit society,as in this case? The owners of the house have refused government offers of compensation so the road must be built around the house. However, in most Western economies the government would simply acquire the property by law and the owners would presumably be fairly compensated for this.
So which is better - governments taking property if it is in the public interest to do so or leaving property rights sacred as now seems to be the case in China? Or as I try to get my students to think about when presented with two opposing choices, perhaps there is a third way to consider?Original article can be found here.