Land: The Unique Factor
Mason Gaffney
[Reprinted from Land & Liberty, May-June
1989]
THE WORD land in economics refers to all natural resources and their
locations and extension in space. It includes many things not
colloquially called land.
Any franchise, licence or privilege giving territorial rights is a
right to land, at least in part, Red lights remind us of the critical
value of space at central locations, since two objects cannot occupy
the same space at the same time. It is worth a lot to have priority at
intersections, as railroads do.
Land is not produced, it was created. It is the world, the planet on
and from which man evolved, with the sun that warms it and the forces
that hold it at an optimal distance. Capital has to be formed by human
saving, investment and production.
Land is a free gift, variously expressed in different philosophies as
spaceship Earth, the big blue marble, God's gift. Creation, The
Promised Land, or Nature. Man did not create the Earth with its
resources, but rather fights over it, Man at best improves and
develops capacities inherent in the free gift. It is surprising that
economic analysis could ever lose sight of this overwhelming truth.
Several points follow immediately.
- Cost of production places no limits on land rents and prices,
neither a lower nor an upper limit. Rents may start at zero and
rise without limit over time as demand rises. Land values are
derived from rents.
- There is always a free marginal supply, the "extensive
margin".
- Access to land is open by nature until and unless land is
appropriated, defended, bounded and policed. No one claims land by
right of production; no producer must be rewarded to evoke and
maintain the supply;
and submarginal land is not worth policing, unless to preempt it for
its possible future values, or to preclude anticipated competition.
Tenure control of some land tends to drive the excluded population to
untenured land (the "commons"), creating an allocational
bias unless all land is either tenured or common. Thomas N. Carver
styled this the phenomenon of "The Congested Frontier," and
he might have added backwoods.
Land which is partly common today includes parks and public beaches,
streets and highways, water surfaces, wild fish and game, and some at
least of the "wide open spaces" in less hospitable regions.
Some land of high value is untenured or underpriced because consumers
resist paying for what they think of as "free" because it
has no cost of production, and which nature continues to supply even
though the price is too low to ration the land economically.
Examples: water whose natural source is in southern California (it is
tenured, but underpriced); city streets for movement and parking
space, even in New York; air and water used for waste disposal in
populated areas; housing subject to rent controls; popular beaches and
trails; oil and gas subject to field price controls; and so on.
Public capital used to grade and pave public rights-of-way is also
open to general access, and may also suffer the "tragedy of the
commons" of excessive congestion. But this is a deliberate
positive public choice, and one closely associated with the social
impossibility of denying free access to rights of way.
Ownership and tenure rights derive only from appropriation, not
saving, investment or production. Capital, by contrast, is owned by
those who formed it. Only after that does capital bear much
resemblance to land in that they coexist. Standard micro-economics
obscures the differences because it deals mainly with relations of
coexistence, ignoring the continual formation and destruction of
capital, ignoring time and relations of sequence.
Thus it excludes from its purview the differences between land and
capital. Micro deals mainly with how existing resources are allocated
at a moment in time, not how they originate, grow, flourish,
reproduce, age, senesce and die.
After land is appropriated by a nation the original distribution is
political. The nature of societies, cultures and economies for
centuries afterwards are molded by that initial distribution,
exemplified by the differences betwen Costa Rica (equal partition) and
El Salvador with its Las Catorce (The Fourteen Families); or
between Canada and Argentina.
Political redistribution also occurs within nations, as with the
English enclosures and Scottish "clearances" when one part
of the population in effect conquered the rest by political guile and
took over their land, their source of livelihood. Reappropriation and
new appropriation of tenures is not just an ancient or a sometime
thing but a continuing, ongoing process.
This very day proprietary claims to water sources, pollution rights,
access to rights of way, radio spectrum, signal relay sites, landing
rights, beach access, oil and gas, space on telephone and power poles
(e.g. for cable TV), taxi medallions, etc. are being created under our
noses. In LDCs of unstable government the current strong man, perhaps
hanging by a thread, often grants concessions to American adventurers
who can bolster his hold on power by supplying both cash up front, and
help from various U.S. and U.N. agencies from the IMF to the USMC.
Private tenure is often granted under customs that make it a prize
for occupying or fixing some capital on land. Premature investment,
settlement and development are frequent results, seriously distorting
the allocation of labor and capital and contributing to the "Congested
Frontier" problem.
The present value of land is not derived from or caused by or related
to its cost of production. Present value is derived solely by
discounting future ground rents, which are not a reward or an
incentive for creating land.
With capital the sequence is that man saves to form capital, a lump
sum, which then yields a service flow. Capital formation precedes and
causes the service flow. With land the sequence is reversed. The
service flow is a free gift which simply exists, whether one pays for
it or not. The expected service flow is then converted by economic man
into a lump sum present value, a process called "capitalizing",
i.e. making it superficially resemble capital for purposes of
exchange.
Thus land value adjusts to rent, rather than an equilibrium rent's
being determined at a level sufficient to reward producing the asset.
Public policy needs to promote capital formation but not land
creation, which no man can do. Land rent may be taxed heavily without
discouraging capital formation. Indeed it would certainly encourage
capital formation to lower the level of land prices, because there is
a diminishing marginal utility of assets to private holders, and the
loss of land values would stimulate new saving by individuals to make
up the loss.
|