Comparative Analysis of Richard H. Tawney and Thorstein B. Veblen’s Conceptions of Property

The conceptualizations of property by Thorstein B. Veblen and Richard H. Tawney are compared. At a general level, both scholars were avid students of economic history and used economic history to explain evolutionary changes in the institution of property. Methodologically, Veblen clearly explains property in a cumulative causal sequence, which Tawney does not do convincingly. However, both Tawney and Veblen dichotomized society into a functional society (industrial, commonwealth of masterless people) and an acquisitive society (business dominated, leisure class dominated, commonwealth of saboteurs). The former is dominated by active property, which serves a social purpose of advancing the common good. Property, in this case, is an institution to fulfil the survival requirement of society. The latter is dominated by passive property, which serves as an extractive institution through which the power of economic sabotage is exercised. Although Tawney viewed some variants of the institution of property as necessary for society to function properly, Veblen found that all legal rights to property were rights of economic sabotage, which, in most cases, started as active property and over time mutated into passive property, manifesting as absentee ownership.