IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i8p1207-d1450364.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Credibility and the Social Function of Property: A Saga of Mega-Dams, Eviction, and Privatization, as Told by Displaced Communities in Malaysia

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Ho

    (School of Public Affairs, Zijingang Campus, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
    NUBS, University of Nottingham, Wollaton Road, Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK)

  • Bin Md Saman Nor-Hisham

    (Department of Town and Regional Planning, Perak Branch, Seri Iskandar Campus, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam 32610, Malaysia)

  • Heng Zhao

    (Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, No. 12 Zhongguancun South St., Beijing 100081, China)

Abstract

Globally, the forced displacement of socially vulnerable communities causes significant contestation, irrespective of whether that occurs for mega-projects or smaller infrastructural, agricultural, urban renewal, or property developments. Despite multilateral guidelines for “socially inclusive” development, it is difficult to avoid the marginalization of evicted, local communities. Grounded on the credibility thesis, this article provides a new, theoretical basis for understanding the “social function of property” and how this may be used as a criterion to assess whether development-induced and resettlement projects should be given the go-ahead. Methodologically, this article employs the FAT (Formal, Actual, and Targeted) Institutional Framework to unpack the social function of property. To this end, it analyzes the acquisition and privatization of the common property of Indigenous Peoples to construct the Malaysian Bakun Hydroelectric Project, purportedly Asia’s second-largest dam. The FAT analysis ascertains the following three conditions on which basis projects should be halted: (1) the property of the evicted communities fulfills a critical role in providing social welfare; (2) the said function is disregarded by the expropriating agency; (3) the power divides between the expropriator and expropriated prevent meaningful participation by the latter. This study demonstrates that the social function of property can be effectively measured and validates the FAT Framework as a viable tool to analyze development-induced projects (and policies), with particular reference to expropriation, privatization, and formalization.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Ho & Bin Md Saman Nor-Hisham & Heng Zhao, 2024. "Credibility and the Social Function of Property: A Saga of Mega-Dams, Eviction, and Privatization, as Told by Displaced Communities in Malaysia," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-28, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:8:p:1207-:d:1450364
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/8/1207/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/8/1207/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fan, Shengyue & He, Miao & Zhang, Tianyu & Huo, Yajing & Fan, Di, 2022. "Credibility measurement as a tool for conserving nature: Chinese herders’ livelihood capitals and payment for grassland ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    2. Fisher,Franklin M., 1989. "Disequilibrium Foundations of Equilibrium Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521378567, January.
    3. P. Ho, 2001. "Rangeland Degradation in North China Revisited? A Preliminary Statistical Analysis to Validate Non-Equilibrium Range Ecology," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(3), pages 99-133.
    4. Fadzilah Majid Cooke & Johan Nordensvard & Gusni Bin Saat & Frauke Urban & Giuseppina Siciliano, 2017. "The Limits of Social Protection: The Case of Hydropower Dams and Indigenous Peoples' Land," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(3), pages 437-450, September.
    5. Ghorbani, Amineh & Ho, Peter & Bravo, Giangiacomo, 2021. "Institutional form versus function in a common property context: The credibility thesis tested through an agent-based model," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    6. Wen Chiat Lee & K. Kuperan Viswanathan & Jamal Ali, 2015. "Compensation policy in a large development project: the case of the Bakun hydroelectric dam," International Journal of Water Resources Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(1), pages 64-72, March.
    7. Robert J. Smith, 1981. "Resolving the Tragedy of the Commons by Creating Private Property Rights in Wildlife," Cato Journal, Cato Journal, Cato Institute, vol. 1(2), pages 439-468, Fall.
    8. Andrea Schapper & Frauke Urban, 2021. "Large dams, norms and Indigenous Peoples," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 39(S1), pages 61-80, August.
    9. Gomes, Sharlene L. & Hermans, Leon M., 2018. "Institutional function and urbanization in Bangladesh: How peri-urban communities respond to changing environments," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 932-941.
    10. Ziqi Zhou & Yung Yau, 2021. "The Small Property Rights Housing Institution in Mainland China: The Perspective of Substitutability of Institutional Functions," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-19, August.
    11. Aron, Janine, 2000. "Growth and Institutions: A Review of the Evidence," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 15(1), pages 99-135, February.
    12. You, Heyuan & Zhang, Jinrong & Song, Yan, 2022. "Assessing conflict of farmland institutions using credibility theory: Implications for socially acceptable land use," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    13. Goyal, Yugank & Choudhury, Pranab Ranjan & Ghosh, Ranjan Kumar, 2022. "Informal land leasing in rural India persists because it is credible," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ho, Peter & Zevenbergen, Jaap & Tan, Rong, 2024. "The Credibility Thesis, a decade onwards: A review of the theoretical field, findings and future," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    2. Lai, Lawrence W.C., 2024. "The Credibility Thesis meeting the Coase Theorem in terms of form and function," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    3. Groenewegen, John, 2022. "Institutional form (blueprints) and institutional function (process): Theoretical reflections on property rights and land," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    4. Azadi, Hossein & Ehteshammajd, Shaghayegh & Goli, Imaneh & Siamian, Narges & Movahhed Moghaddam, Saghi & Ho, Peter & Janečková, Kristina & Sklenička, Petr, 2024. "Advocacy and credibility of land tenure in Ethiopia: Mitigating conflicts and threats," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    5. Vatn, Arild, 2023. "The credibility thesis – A commentary from an original institutionalist position," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    6. Ghorbani, Amineh & Ho, Peter & Bravo, Giangiacomo, 2021. "Institutional form versus function in a common property context: The credibility thesis tested through an agent-based model," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    7. Ho, Peter, 2018. "Institutional function versus form: The evolutionary credibility of land, housing and natural resources," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 642-650.
    8. Qian, Chen & Antonides, Gerrit & Heerink, Nico & Zhu, Xueqin & Ma, Xianlei, 2022. "An economic-psychological perspective on perceived land tenure security: Evidence from rural eastern China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    9. Goyal, Yugank & Choudhury, Pranab Ranjan & Ghosh, Ranjan Kumar, 2022. "Informal land leasing in rural India persists because it is credible," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    10. Abhilas Pradhan & Rabinarayan Patra, 2013. "Heterogeneity, collective action and management sustainability in common property forest resources: case study from the Indian state Odisha," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 979-997, August.
    11. Birdyshaw, Edward & Ellis, Christopher, 2007. "Privatizing an open-access resource and environmental degradation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 469-477, March.
    12. Wang, Han & Tian, Fuan & Wu, Jianxian & Nie, Xin, 2023. "Is China forest landscape restoration (FLR) worth it? A cost-benefit analysis and non-equilibrium ecological view," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    13. Niclas Berggren & Mikael Elinder, 2012. "Is tolerance good or bad for growth?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 150(1), pages 283-308, January.
    14. Maria Litvinova & Maria Luigia Segnana, 2015. "Firm boundaries in Transition countries. The influence of technological and institutional links," DEM Working Papers 2015/05, Department of Economics and Management.
    15. Henk-Jan Brinkman & Cullen S. Hendrix, 2010. "Food Insecurity and Conflict," World Bank Publications - Reports 27510, The World Bank Group.
    16. Andrea Lasagni & Annamaria Nifo & Gaetano Vecchione, 2015. "Firm Productivity And Institutional Quality: Evidence From Italian Industry," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(5), pages 774-800, November.
    17. Diana Escandon-Barbosa & David Urbano-Pulido & Andrea Hurtado-Ayala, 2019. "Exploring the Relationship between Formal and Informal Institutions, Social Capital, and Entrepreneurial Activity in Developing and Developed Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, January.
    18. Kryeziu Liridon & Coşkun Recai, 2018. "Political and Economic Institutions and Economic Performance: Evidence from Kosovo," South East European Journal of Economics and Business, Sciendo, vol. 13(2), pages 84-99, December.
    19. Doan, Quang Hung & Vu, Hoang Nam & Dao, Ngoc Tien, 2013. "Sub-National Institutions and Firm Survival in Vietnam," MPRA Paper 63653, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Ravi Shankar & Leslie Chadwick & Shahzad Ghafoor & Farooq Khan, 2011. "Development of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in India," Journal of Asian Scientific Research, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 1(3), pages 87-101, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:8:p:1207-:d:1450364. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.