Abstract
Certainty and clarity of legally defined individual private property rights, protected by and from a constrained state, are doctrines of neoclassical economics-derived development theory. But absent these conditions, there may be alternative mechanisms to provide some protection for business development and property. Using a case study drawn from China, I will argue that collective, contested, ambiguous and perhaps absence of legally defined property rights - and a relatively unconstrained state with limited rule of law - has not led to a failure in economic development terms. In some cases there may have been advantages in the Chinese post-Maoist context with economic liberalisation reforms beginning in 1978, and with the building of meaning and institutions found in a transitional state, where rules are unclear and open to debate, and much is up for grabs. Indeed, ambiguity – where something can be understood in variable ways - may have allowed for innovation and experimentation in this transition.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 394-412 |
| Journal | Asian Studies Review |
| Volume | 40 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 24 Jul 2016 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 8 Decent Work and Economic Growth
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'The advantages of ambiguity? Development, rule formation and property rights during transition in China'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver