Who owns the Earth?

Udo Herrmannstorfer: Who owns the Earth?

The Question of Modern Land Reform (Theses)

1. The system of land legislation, i.e. the canon of rules for the utilization of land, is a

fundamental feature of every society. However, it is also an expression of the society’s self perception.

The emergence of modern concepts of state, with the break-up of traditional social

hierarchies, and the advent of a globalized world order make a new look at land legislation

mandatory. Otherwise serious injustices and damages will result, of the kind which we

are already facing today in numerous instances.

2. Land forms the basis of the whole of any society. Thus the necessary allocation of

land utilization must benefit all individuals within the society. Since land, with few exceptions,

is not a producible commodity, it cannot be put on sale in a market. Selling land means privatizing

that part of the ground rent which should actually be socialized. Turning the factors of

production into salable commodities is a serious and fundamental mistake of our economic

system. In this regard, labour and capital are similarly problematic, though for different reasons.

3. The land always belongs to everyone, though it can be utilized only by individuals.

Thus individual “ownership” of land can only refer to the right of utilization. As long as this

individual utilization continues unchanged, there is no need for societal action. Society only

has to ensure that a new user can step into the rights of the previous utilizer when he quits.

In such a system, the right to land utilization would change hands only by assignment, not by

sale. In this way, land “ownership” would be brought back into circulation within the social

system. Society would not manage the land; it would only ensure that it is available to (suitable)

individuals for utilization, and that such utilization is not made impossible by prohibitive

sales prices.

4. Instead of a sales price paid to the to the pre-possessor, society could impose a social

compensation payment for the ongoing utilization of the land. This is justified because

the use of land by one individual excludes everyone else from using the same plot. The

communal income accruing from the compensation payments would be used to the benefit of

all people in the respective region, or part of the world. Such compensation payments do not

constitute interest on capital, since no sale, and thus no capital transfer, has taken place.

Their level would not be determined by supply and demand, but by social considerations. For

instance, society can adjust the level so as to further ecological agriculture or other societal

goals.

5. A land reform of this kind would have enormous consequences for the conditions of

social life, from housing to regional and town planning, and finally to the agricultural system.

Even more serious would be the effects on prices and incomes if the manner of land utilization

were thus to be brought back to a state of stable health. The capital, which is presently

tied up in land property, would be set free for other, useful purposes.

6. Large parts of the world are presently being forced to reorganize their social systems,

adapting them to the conditions of globalization. It would not be necessary to plunge these

regions into the same problems of land speculation which other parts of the world have gone

through - possibly in even more acute forms. In the rich countries, long-established social

rights and public welfare alleviate the problems arising from land legislation. Countries that

are still developing have not had the time to establish such safeguards; consequently, they

lack the corrective forces that make the adverse effects of outdated forms of land legislation

tolerable in our part of the world.

Our Responsibility for Our Resources (Theses)

1. Since time immemorial, the resources of our world seemed inexhaustible. Again and

again, new discoveries and inventions seemed to make serious concern unnecessary. This

euphoria is now gone. We have become conscious of the limitations of our resources. Care

and husbandry are indicated. A more sophisticated concept is sustainability, based on self-renewal

and circulation of resources.

2. Land legislation has a greater impact on resource management than is generally realized.

It is not only the direct effects mentioned in the theses of the first Building Block that are

of concern. Directly or indirectly, property legislation influences a lot more: the right to mineral

resources in the ground; preferred types of agricultural utilization; the management and

care of water supply and atmospheric pollution. Those are also the points of origin of the

strongest opposition to reforms. The problem is aggravated by WTO’s claim to deregulate

land property transactions everywhere.

3. A special problem is posed by mineral resources below the sea outside national territories,

which so far have been exempt from sovereignty. The extension of territorial limits to

200 miles was a first coup against the chances of making those resources available to all

mankind. Contention for territorial rights to islands and bases such as the Falklands, the Aegean,

Morocco etc., which at first sight appears politically senseless, often concerns suboceanic

mineral or oil deposits. Reversing this aberration would constitute a movement towards

a constructive type of globalization that would not imply real loss of sovereignty, only

abstention from an expansion of power spheres - an important step toward building confidence.

4. In agriculture, promotion of ecological (“bio”) cultivation methods is the foremost goal

- being the closest we can get to real sustainability. In our countries, the percentage of ecological

methods being used is steadily increasing, although it has yet to reach the 10 per cent

level. But in the end, ecological methods will survive only if the price structure allows. Reacting

to the change from traditional into area-proportional subsidies in the developed economies

(without regard to ecological aspects), the developing countries now ask for the total

abolishment of agricultural subsidies. This brings out a second problem in agriculture: that

indeed we must learn to sustain regional equilibrium everywhere. Agriculture is tied to immobile

land, and that puts regional limits to its markets. It would be absurd if globalization, in

striving for trade and technical equalization, were to destroy the agricultural part of the economy

in our countries. Ecology is not the only reform we need in our agricultural sector: we

also need a new type of economy.

5. With regard to materials, today’s watchwords are economy of use, abstention, reusability

and substitution. Water and air take a special place because everybody needs them

absolutely. In the long run, a globalized economy should also strive for equilibrium of goods

transfers since the place of consumption increasingly does not coincide with the place of

production. Low prices for raw materials and low transport costs lead to an unnecessary acceleration of consumption. Ecological taxation would be a remedy. In order to ‘shape’ globalization,

such taxes would have to be earmarked for global (supranational) efforts, to ensure

that they are not misappropriated for the internal financing of individual states.

6. Resource consumption is determined, to an important part, by the technology available

to the civilization that does the consuming. If we want to avoid that societies developing

in our wake wreak damage similar to what we have done, we must enable them to start at

our present technological level. Thus our goal in dealing with developing countries should not

be maximum competitive advantage, but ensuring that they use the most economical and

resource-preserving technologies available. Economists should think about how the necessary

economic regulations would have to be formulated.

7. Human resources are a special chapter. The task of creating working conditions that

promote development without offending human dignity is irrefutable. But it can be achieved

only by a concerted system of economic measures - for instance, when we want to avoid that

the introduction of a minimum wage leads to a loss of sales because of increased prices. The

slogan “Poverty is our biggest competition factor” is a forceful example.

8. The way of using capital, as a resource needs to be further developed. Obviously,

this is dependent on how the processes generating capital needs are perceived. We must

acquire special sensory organs for a correct perception of such needs, to avoid the danger of

a proliferation of spending, or of misappropriation by the ruling establishment.

9. The development of economic thought and policy relies predominantly on economic

stimuli. But recent insights show that ecological considerations are generally fading from

public consciousness, leaving control to purse strings. Yet one would expect people to realize

that without a thorough alteration of public consciousness, it will not be possible to solve

our resource problems. In fact, it appears questionable whether moral appeals to husbandry

and technological equilibrium considerations are at all suitable to stimulate global responsibility.

10. Finally, this whole problem area of resources must be extended by asking what final

use is made of the products. What really matters is not how much is being consumed by

someone, but to what end he or she is using it? What is mankind achieving while it is “consuming”

nature?

Donations as a Condition of Development.

Handling "Intellectual Property" (Theses)

1. With the development of a global world order, particularly of a global economic system,

the old frontiers are disappearing more and more. However, frontiers also give protection

behind which processes of life can develop in a protected space. These shelters were

increasingly destroyed or even abolished by the Bretton Woods appeal "Down with protection".

We ask again for the responsibility for the development of all regions, which are less- or

least developed at the time when the frontiers are abolished. The neo-liberalism believes that

markets are the only answer to this question. But markets alone are not a social development

model.

2. Life starts with an enormous donation. In our countries young people are in a socially

protected place for many years. Parents or the society take care of them, until they can enter

professional life after a period of education, training and studies. Donation in this context also

means that parents and society do not demand a pay-back.. We trust in the possibility that

there will be a return flow via social life in general. In contrast the development aid which the

northern countries pay is extremely low. The industrial nations have “tormented” themselves

with the question for decades, whether 0.5% foreign aid is reasonable for their national

economies or not. Moreover, a large part of the very low donations is only given in the form

of allowance for depreciation.

3. At the doorway of world economy one cannot expand straight away because the

growth then hits back to inside for lack of expansion capabilities. Additional growth in productivity

for example causes unemployment instead of more jobs. The forces of economy released

by the growth of productivity have to be use in a new way to avoid illness of the social

life. The development of the stock exchange shows the problem quite well since the stock

exchange seems to be able to grow ad libitum because it does not need to take reality into

consideration. The stock quotations are abstract and not filled with real life. The crisis of the

stock markets has created some reflectiveness and doubts. But it is a question if this mood

will survive the next stock market upswing.

4. The TRIPS agreement aims to protect intellectual property rights just at the moment

where, for the purpose of development, the largest scale know-how transfer would be necessary..

Behind this question lies the problem that research has been increasingly drawn into

the sphere of microeconomic business management and profit making. In this way questions

of know-how become pure questions of competition.. Competition, however, doesn't ask after

the development of the other human being but only looks after its own interests. For this reason

it would be necessary to separate research and licensing on the one hand and production

and distribution on the other hand. Starting from such a separation, a completely different

distribution of the utilization rights would arise. The effect would level the development

differences instead of heightening them.

5. The development of a global situation makes it necessary to enlarge the understanding

of economy by including the idea of donation. Without donation no development.

About the author

Udo Herrmannstorfer (Dornach); born in 1941 in Breslau; industrial manager, master of

business administration, studies in economics. Since 1971 a freelance management consultant

focusing on organization and training. Study of Anthroposophy and its social impulses.

Consultancy and support of initiatives which are searching for new forms, - based on the idea

of social three-folding. Working on the questions of societal- and economic policies from a

socioscientific point of view. International work includes lectures and seminars, works also as

an editor and author. Heads the institute for modern forms of economic- and social life in

Dornach, Switzerland.