More on Defending de Soto

Kerry Howley blogged here the other day about the attack on Hernando de Soto from John Gravois over at Slate. Today at TechCentralStation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Ivan Osorio also comes to de Soto's defense.

The piece is worth reading in its entirety, and mostly expands on the observation that:

Gravois accuses de Soto of selling this elite -- gathered at powwows like the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland -- an economic snake oil panacea….That snake oil is "one solution -- individual property titles -- for all kinds of poor people in all different kinds of poor places," by which "dead assets are turned -- voila! -- into live capital."

This is a gross distortion of de Soto's ideas. To say that something is necessary is not to say that it is also sufficient.

Regarding one particular sin Gravois tosses at De Soto's feet, Osorio writes:

Forced evictions, like those [Gravois] cites in Phnom Penh, are not the result of titling, but of a lack of security in those titles due to a lack of rule of law. No system of private property worthy of the name involves private parties "buying squatter-occupied state land from various government officials," much less while those officials "pocket the money, thus looting the land both from the state and from the poor." To say that such monstrosities are honestly "inspired by de Soto's work" -- even when those countries' ruling authorities say they are -- is like placing the blame for sectarian violence on entire religions rather than on a few fanatics' twisted interpretations.
……
Gravois also misrepresents de Soto by suggesting that, for de Soto, animating "dead capital" is everything. Yet land titles animate something else -- incentives, which Gravois doesn't even mention, even though de Soto has articulated the incentive value of property as clearly as is possible.

Blogger Conflict of Interest alert: I once worked at CEI, and Ivan is an old friend. For that matter, I often enjoy reading both Slate and TechCentralStation, so you can see exactly how conflicted my interests got in composing this entry.

Comments

[Jeff Smith]

I am presently reading Three Roads to the
Alamo, a history of David Crockett, Jim
Bowie (of the knife) and Travis, the three
famous guys who died at the Alamo.

The description how land sales worked on the
frontier in Bowie's time (and particularly of
how he worked his fraudulent land claims in
Louisiana and Arkansas) match very closely
the description of buying squatter occupied
land from corrupt or incompetent government
officials.

I find it good to keep in mind, as we preach
to other countries about how to run their
affairs, that the lessons we offer often come
from our own past experience, not from any
inherent superiority.

It is also good to remember that despite our
sometimes dodgy past, we turned out okay.

Jeff

[Julian Sanchez]

"Blogger Conflict of Interest alert"
Oh hell; in the post Gallagher/Williams world, do I have to do this every time I link something from Cato or a blog by someone I've had a drink with?

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

Oh hell; in the post Gallagher/Williams world, do I have to do this every time I link something from Cato or a blog by someone I've had a drink with?

You already disclosed on the Ned Beatty thing.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

I don't understand the argument here. Gravois is being dishonest in the first place. Of course the banks aren't going to give a mortgage tomorrow for a piece of slumland. BUT, by privatizing ownership of the land, the only thing that can happen to the land is for the worth of the land to increase because of both demand and owners caring for their own property. Once the value of the land begins to climb, then the financing options that are available to landowners will kick in.

[Brian Doherty]

Julian--As the disclaimer went on, I was clearly havin' a bit of fun with the very concepts of "conflict" and "interest." In Ivan Osorio's case, he's one of my oldest and dearest pals and our longterm musical partnership dating back to the silver age of punk rock has already been mentioned on this blog, so I thought it might be appropriate. I certainly don't take disclaimerability to the "everyone I've shared any friendly social interaction" with level. And in fact, I'll probably feel equally free to link to things of Ivan's in the future without bothering with this disclaimer shite.