Law and Economics Paper #3
Back in college, I remember watching a couple of documentaries about indigenous people and how they were driven out of the land that they had always occupied. To our forefathers, land was not something that could be owned. In a sense, land was classified according to function --- grounds for hunting, for washing laundry, milling rice, holding town meetings, etc. It was the westerners who brought the concept of “owning” land to our shores. Then ensued a long history of land grabbing, claiming and exploitation. It was then when we were made aware that land was something within the commerce of man. But that was not the only instance wherein we discovered something capable of appropriation. Intangibles such as stocks, copyrights, patents soon entered the realm of commerce. The concept of property is being revolutionized --- from corporeal phone lines made of copper wire and rubber to binary packets streaming through phone lines enabling Voice-Over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP).* If property rights can be asserted over something so… intangible (after all, the virtual world is composed of 1’s and 0’s), perhaps it’s only a matter of time when air too, can be within the commerce of man.
We have come a long way from defining property as something that could be grasped with one’s hands. Our laws are patterned with that in mind. In fact, more and more laws are being crafted to address increasing breakthroughs in technology that might further redefine property rights. In our haste to keep up with the changing times, I can’t help but wonder if we are slowly losing focus on the traditional meaning of property. It all began with the Regalian Doctrine. That was the rug pulled out from under our ancestors’ feet. It must have been refreshing to find out that land can be traded in exchange for food and clothing. But then again, it must have been a rude awakening to be told that the ground beneath your feet cannot be used to live off on without the express permission of the king. The laws that we copied from country A, B, C, etcetera don’t really address these problems. Thankfully, some legal luminaries thought up the IPRA and CARL but then again, despite these laws, justice is not always served on the deserving. Would the Hobbes or Coase theorems help?
Technology and economics may have a nexus. For example, the VoIP law’s aim is to encourage competition and improve telecommunications technology. Faced with such a policy, the hard neutral theorems would fit like a glove. For instance, although Globe was mandated to reach certain service levels, not applying the same policy to Sun Cellular could perhaps be described as an efficient solution which ultimately resulted in lower rates offered by competitor service providers.
Indigenous rights and efficiency or economics are hard to reconcile. It would be efficient and economic to award a tract of land to a rich landowner because he can cultivate it, employ more workers or put it to some profitable venture. Does justice lie in reimbursing the indigenous people the value of their land? There is more to this at stake than remuneration. Socio-political factors more often than not come into play. Even King Solomon’s seemingly fair solution of cutting the baby in half was merely a test. What is efficient or economic is always fair, but what is fair may not always be just.
*NOTE: The author is currently taking up the elective Law on Information and Technology
We have come a long way from defining property as something that could be grasped with one’s hands. Our laws are patterned with that in mind. In fact, more and more laws are being crafted to address increasing breakthroughs in technology that might further redefine property rights. In our haste to keep up with the changing times, I can’t help but wonder if we are slowly losing focus on the traditional meaning of property. It all began with the Regalian Doctrine. That was the rug pulled out from under our ancestors’ feet. It must have been refreshing to find out that land can be traded in exchange for food and clothing. But then again, it must have been a rude awakening to be told that the ground beneath your feet cannot be used to live off on without the express permission of the king. The laws that we copied from country A, B, C, etcetera don’t really address these problems. Thankfully, some legal luminaries thought up the IPRA and CARL but then again, despite these laws, justice is not always served on the deserving. Would the Hobbes or Coase theorems help?
Technology and economics may have a nexus. For example, the VoIP law’s aim is to encourage competition and improve telecommunications technology. Faced with such a policy, the hard neutral theorems would fit like a glove. For instance, although Globe was mandated to reach certain service levels, not applying the same policy to Sun Cellular could perhaps be described as an efficient solution which ultimately resulted in lower rates offered by competitor service providers.
Indigenous rights and efficiency or economics are hard to reconcile. It would be efficient and economic to award a tract of land to a rich landowner because he can cultivate it, employ more workers or put it to some profitable venture. Does justice lie in reimbursing the indigenous people the value of their land? There is more to this at stake than remuneration. Socio-political factors more often than not come into play. Even King Solomon’s seemingly fair solution of cutting the baby in half was merely a test. What is efficient or economic is always fair, but what is fair may not always be just.
*NOTE: The author is currently taking up the elective Law on Information and Technology
0 comments:
Post a Comment