Abstract
The notion of property is fundamentally different between modern culture and indigenous people. In practice, modernity posits property as a set of material rights that are notionally comparable to other material values. Indigenous people perceive property only partially in these terms and place greater emphasis on origins and obligations of property within an understanding of community that is alien to modern culture.
If property is recognized to consist of both material and non-material values, then it cannot be adequately valued in commercial terms alone. The Australian experience in assessing compensation for the extinguishment of indigenous ownership has been less than satisfactory with few resolutions and many of those negotiated in secret. Conclusions from this experience provide insights into the nature of the dilemma posed by attempting to render indigenous interests in land into modern commercial terms.
The recognition of the metaphysical foundation of the respective systems of property goes some distance toward understanding the difficulties involved in the valuation of indigenous interests. The solution probably lies outside the attempt to transfer ownership when the real need is merely use.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Solatium is the compensation made for immaterial loss associated with a loss of property rights.
- 2.
Conventional here refers to arbitrary as opposed to natural.
- 3.
This case rejected the previously held legal belief that the land in Australia was not owned (terra nullius) prior to the English act of taking possession. It held that the indigenous people of Australia were in fact valid land owners, and in some cases that ownership persists to the present day.
- 4.
Metaphysics refers here to its classical meaning as the study of what is fit to be or less formally the study of the nature and implication of various modes of being.
- 5.
For example, see Alice Springs News (1996) “Deal on sacred trees: Goods, services, cash – custodians negotiate” (February 26) 1.
- 6.
In philosophical terms, the dimensions (size, number, mass, etc.) of the specific qualities of a thing are referred to as accidental qualities, since they are not necessarily specified for the thing to be what it is. Each category has a specific nature, but within it variations of degree (accident) may occur.
References
Acryl, J.L. 1997, Essays on Plato and Aristotle, Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Aquinas, T. 1981, Summa Theologica, trans. E.D. Province, 2 nd end, Christian Classics, Westminster, Maryland, USA.
Ball, M. & Wood, A. 1995, ‘Investment and Economic Growth: Long Run Trends and Cycles', Pacific Asia Property Research Conference, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Boyd, T. 1995, ‘The Valuation of Land of Indigenous People – the New Zealand Experience', Australian Land Economics Review, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 9–15.
Commissioner, A.A.T.S.I.S.J. 1998, Native Title Report 1998, Canberra.
Coulanges, F.D. 1890, The Origin of Property in Land, trans. W.Ashley, 2 nd edn, George Allen, London.
Ezigbalike, I.C. 1994, ‘Cadastral “Reform” – At What Cultural Costs to Developing Countries', The Australian Surveyor, vol. 39, no. 3, pp.177–186.
Fusfeld, D.R. 1999, The Age of the Economist, 8th edn, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
Harrison, F. 1983, The Power in the Land, Schalkenbach, New York.
Hume, D. 1777, Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals, Claredon, Oxford.
Johnson, P.E. 1995, Reason in the Balance, Intervarsity, Downer's Grove, IL.
Kant, I. 1785, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. J.W. Ellington, Hackett, USA.
Locke, J. 1693, Two Treatises on Government, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Meikle, S. 1995, Aristotle's Economic Thought, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
Mill, J.S. 1848, Principles of Political Economy, Routedge, London.
Mill, J.S. 1859, On Liberty, Fount, London.
Myers, M. 2002, ‘Current Valuation Practices: Thorn or Olive Branch in Reducing Land Tenure Conflict?' FAO/USP/RICS Foundation South Pacific Land Tenure Conflict Symposium, University of the South Pacific, Suva.
Myers, M.S. & Shah, K. 2004, ‘Why Native Land s are Worth Less Than Freehold', Pacific Rim Real Estate Society International Conference, ed. S.M. Yu, Pacific Rim Real Estate Society, Bangkok.
O'Connor, P. 2000, Beyond the Mist: What Irish Mythology Can Teach us About Ourselves, Allan & Unwin, Sydney.
O'Connor, P. 2001, ‘Stories for the Soul', The Sydney Morning Herald (Spectrum), 7 April, p. 2.
Rakai, M.E.T. 1995, ‘Implications of Incorporating Customary Land Tenure Data into a Land Information System', Trans Tasman Surveyor, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 29–38.
Reeve, A. 1986, Property, Macmillan, Houndsmills, Hampshire, England.
Savae, T. 1994, ‘The Evolution of Land Titles in Tonga', The Australian Surveyor, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 241–251.
Sheehan, J. & Small, G.R. 2002, ‘Towards A Definition Of Property Rights', UTS Property Research Unit Working Paper Series, vol. 2, no. 1.
Small, G. 1997, ‘A Cross Cultural Economic Analysis of Customary and Western Land Tenure', The Valuer, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 617–625.
Small, G. 2003, ‘Human Action and Property', Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 348–360.
Small, G.R. 2002, ‘An Experimental Study of Auction Behaviour', Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 212–225.
Small, G.R. & Oluwoye, J. 1999, ‘An Experimental Study of Market Formation Behaviour', RICS Cutting Edge Conference, ed. S. Brown, RICS, Cambridge, England.
Smith, A. 1759, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Garland, New York.
Smith, A. 1778, The Wealth of Nations, J. M. Dent, London.
Yunupingu, G. 1996, ‘Concepts of Land and Spirituality', Aboriginal Spirituality: Past, Present, Future, ed. A. Pattel-Gray, Harper Collins Religious, Blackburn, p. 4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Small, G., Sheehan, J. (2008). The Metaphysics of Indigenous Ownership: Why Indigenous Ownership is Incomparable to Western Conceptions of Property Value. In: Simons, R.A., Malmgren, R., Small, G. (eds) Indigenous Peoples and Real Estate Valuation. Research Issues in Real Estate, vol 10. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-77938-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-77938-6_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-77937-9
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-77938-6
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)