Property regimes have been making the news lately in spades. it seems like every time one nation transitions away from nationalized or collectivized resource management, another is waiting in the wings to take its place. The contrast between incredibly short life spans of national property regimes to long-held traditional collective and familial property regimes also refers us back to the social nature of property relations. Shifting ownership entitlements mean shifting social values.

Last month a headline caught my attention that read, "Oldest Kibbutz succumbs to privatization." The article described how Delgaria Alef voted to privatize the communal village founded in 1909 by 12 young Zionists. The path to privatization began with the introduction of differential salaries, deposited into private accounts and payment for kibbutz services.

Apparently, the motion supporting Kibbutz Delgaria Alef's privatization was passed with an 85% majority vote. But an "equality tax" will be maintained that will support lesser-earning members, the communal dining hall will persist, as will an educational supplement. From socialism to social democracy. One has to wonder if this innovation will help the community thrive again or is this the death clang of the kibbutz?

Nearby in Iran, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei declared that, "all national economic activities and planning should be conducted within the framework of the Article 44 privatization plan" in order to promote "massive economic transformation," which would result in a kind of jihad (Privatization will lead to prosperity: Leader, Tehran Times, Iran - Feb 19, 2007). Khamenei issued a decree in July to privatize state industries by amending this article of the Constitution which had banned all national industry and manufacturing enterprises from being privately owned.

The decree is based on claims that privatization would help to distribute national assets to the less privileged strata of society. Common allegations criticizing state bureaucracy for inefficiency and corruption have led to calls for privatization of state assets, but state officials responsible for these industries are reluctant to relinquish their seats of power. There are two other reasons why privatization might not take off as smoothly as anticipated: (1) the lack of a politically stable investment environment; and (2) the lack of market conditions such as developed capital markets, competitive goods and services markets.

Ali Mostashari, LEAD Consultant to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in New York believes that serious state attention to social planning will be needed to mitigate the disastrous impacts of privatization on labour, employment, and economic growth that will ensue.

I guess it’s a good time to be a capitalist. Investment opportunities abound. Take China. In China, the words that make up “Communist” are “gong chan,” which literally translates into “common property.” But whereas in the mid-1950s 99% of China’s industry, 93% of its agricultural base, and 85% of its commerce where brought under public ownership, over the next few decades the collective property regime would loosen and eventually unravel.

During the height of Communist ideology, eliminating all ideas of private ownership was the aim of practice of Chinese government. But  when the Reform and “Opening Up” of China took place in 1978, it brought back the “phoenix of ‘private’ from the ashes,” as evidenced in the Chinese Constitutional Amendments in 1982, when farmers were allowed to own their own land. In 1988, private economy was officially recognized. By 2004, the Constitution decreed: “Citizen lawful private property is inviolable”! Inviolable! But things had been changing on the ground for some time: “In terms of the GDP, the private sector already accounted for a whopping 70% of China’s total in 2005.”

Wendy Liu offers by explanation Deng Xiaping’s advice: “It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.”

Closer to our backyard, a new Senate report outlines barriers Aboriginal communities face to economic development. A big challenge to Aboriginal people is getting access to capital due to the collective nature of reserve lands. With no collateral to put up, Aboriginal entrepreneurs struggle to raise money for their projects.

In Fort McMurray, Alberta, rich in natural resources, business opportunities abound, though in other parts of the country, local Natives aren’t so fortunate.

Surprisingly, the Senate report rejected calls for the privatization of Aboriginal land. According to one article, “Instead the senators recommend the government allow for alternatives to privatization, such as long-term leases of land. As well, they’re calling on the government to speed-up land claim negotiations and provide more support to aboriginal businesses.”

And then there’s Venezuela, a country that made headlines this week, not for privatizing its economy, but for announcing plans to collectivize property. Chavez announced that to impede capitalism’s continued influence in Venezuela, that “his government was ‘advancing quickly’ with a concept of ‘social or collective property’ to be included in forthcoming constitutional reforms.” He did not clearly outline the reforms, but stated that, “It cannot be production to generate profits from one person or a small group of people that become rich exploiting peons who end becoming slaves, ‘living in poverty and misery their entire lives.’”

Proposals floated by government advisors include defining collective property as “state-owned assets such as farms that can be managed by workers who share profits.” Venezuela’s government already helps organize and finance thousands of cooperatives, “but the state does not have full ownership of the real estate or infrastructure used by most co-ops.”

In the past five years, Venezuelan officials have already redistributed over 4.6 million acres of “unproductive” land or that lacked property documents.

It will be interesting to watch these developments in Venezuela. What can be learned about radical redistributions of land? One thing that worries me about this announcement is the mention of “unproductive” land. I spent two years studying the colonial discourses of nonproductive land in the form of justifications for indigenous land appropriation for the purposes of “improvement.” Who will benefit from this redistribution? Who will lose? Were property documents missing because they were traditional indigenous lands – lacking proper papers to prove so? This is the material for another entry soon...