Land rights formalization in India: Examining de Soto through the lens of Rawls’ theory of justice Sattwick Dey Biswas TU Dortmund University, Germany/ NLSIU, India

Acknowledgement … Funding: Lånekassen and HiOA, Oslo Intellectual support: Professor Benjamin Davy, TU Dortmund University Mara Ahlers, Jackline Kabahinda, Michael Kolocek, Yitu Yang and Sepideh Abaii - participants of Professor Davy’s FLOOR team seminar at TU Dortmund University, Germany ( -Erika Gubrium (HiOA), Joseph Persky (UIC), Benjamin Lockwood (Harvard University), Ashley Müller (UiO), Satyendra Nath Mishra (IRMA) Logistical Support: Sony Pellissery, Vanishree Radhakrishna and NLSIU, India Against all odds: Sattwati De Biswas, Merci Kuwana, Daudi Makamucha, Esmeralda Rama, Monimala Sengupta, Aastha Bajracharya, Marte Lie Albert, Rinson Jose, and Linnéa Näsholm

‘…make the poor rich by formalizing private property rights’ de Soto, 2000

“ De Soto's proposal is not wealth transfer but wealth legalization. The poor of the world already hold trillions in assets now. De Soto is not distributing capital to anyone. By making them liquid, everyone's capital pool grows dramatically” Schaefer (2003), Director Institute of Liberty and Democracy Washington D.C.

Is it old wine in a new bottle? de Soto’s formalization = pro-poor?

Rawls’ Theory of Justice The first Principle of Justice says, “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others” (Rawls 1971/1999, 53) The second principle is; the socioeconomic effects of de Soto’s land reform must (1) not discriminate against any groups within a society and (2) favour the least- advantaged the most (Rawls 1971/1999, 53)

Examining de Soto: through the lens of Rawls’ theory of justice “…a fair agreement or bargain” (Rawls 1971/1999, 11) = sufficient elbow room to deal with the encroachment of other’s rights Intergenerational justice (Rawls 1971/1999, ; Rawls 2001, 159; Piketty 2014, wealth inequality) Taking property? Private property is highly problematic when left to laissez-faire mechanisms as means to ensure justice (Justice Chinnappa; 1983 AIR 803, 1983 SCR (3) 327)

“Scope and definition of property rights may be revised” (Rawls 1971/1999, 244) which includes re-distributional goals; de Soto (2000, 160) asks not to compromise the existing formal property rights Free choice of occupation and the availability of finance (Rawls 1971/1999, 244) Examining de Soto: through the lens of Rawls’ theory of justice

A right to personal property is “basic” of a just society to the extent to which it allows “a sufficient material basis for personal independence and a sense of self-respect, …essential for the adequate development and exercise of the moral powers” (Rawls 1971/1999, 114) Land regimes ~the traditions, institutions, and social forces of each country, and its particular historical circumstances (Rawls 1971/1999, 242; de Soto 2010, 274) Examining de Soto: through the lens of Rawls’ theory of justice

De Soto encourage more extra-legal practices? Answer lies in Intergeneration justice Formal property rights will solve the majority of the injustices and inequalities in a given society ? Answers lies in plural meaning of land (Davy 2012) Alternatives to provide justice? should pass the test of infallibility (Justice Chinnappa; 1983 AIR 803, 1983 SCR (3) 327) Examining de Soto: through the lens of Rawls’ theory of justice

Politics against de Soto’s type formalization~ Things can go terribly wrong (Gilbert 2002) Private property ownership= The best arrangement (Rawls, 1971/1999)~ the question of societal legitimacy? The importance of implementation in the scheme of justice No clear-cut, one-size-fits-for-all solution Examining de Soto: through the lens of Rawls’ theory of justice

Thank you!