Markets & Water rights - Essay Example

1. The meaning of property and water rights: The understanding of the meaning of property becomes problematic as properties can be owned by individuals, bodies of individuals such as partnerships and stock companies or those formed for non-profit. Property can also owned by the state or state owned organizations and can include those controlled by individual state governments or the federal (central) government. The distinction between private ownership (private property) and public ownership (public property is not always easy to define. For instance, a piece of land, a building, or an enclosed water body like a pond or lake can easily be identified as belonging to a certain individual. However, questions regarding property become problematic when it comes to properties that stretch over the boundaries of many private properties (as well as public properties) owned by several owners such as water bodies like streams or rivers. Therefore, it worthwhile to analyse water rights in the light of property issues. McPherson states that property has different connotations in different contexts and he rightly argues that property is a right and not physical possession. For instance, a person may be in possession of a house on rent or for safekeeping on behalf of a friend or a landlord, but that does not mean that the current occupant is the owner of the property. Assuming that rights will settle the matter as to who owns the property there are several instances where the boundaries of rights can become confusing. One is where the property is described as a common one and the other is where the property in question is a water body. As McPherson purports everyone has an ‘enforceable claim to use’ common lands, public parks, city streets, highways (McPherson 4). On the other hand, there are state owned properties like for example, NASA or other properties owned by the state and federal governments. These properties do not provide the same rights to citizens as do common properties. Such properties are maintained for some specific purpose aimed at the benefit of the society or individual sections of the society and not for individual enjoyment. A court of law is an ideal example, which does not provide an enforceable claim to use sections of the property as in the case of a park or a highway. It may be used under certain conditions to address the rights of citizens to enforce law. The question here is where water bodies that cannot be defined clearly fall in the case of property rights. In an area where there is abundant rainfall or availability of common water bodies, this might not be much of an issue. But the case of the American west, where availability of water is more of an issue, the rights of property becomes an issue that needs legal and statutory assistance to find a settlement. Gillian and Brown, in their paper titled ‘Instream flow protection’ has discussed this issue in some detail, referring to the history of water disputes and laws right from the start of colonization of the country. For instance, the Spaniards followed their own domestic water laws which provide the property owner to use water flowing through their property. But public benefit would override private needs and in such an instance, the latter would prevail. British settlers, who back home had few problems with water, were not as well prepared. After attaining independence, different states in the union had to develop their own laws regarding management of water and most were made according to current demands at the time. For example, the California gold rush prompted lawmakers to allow property owners to use water for their own use. American law following British statutes aimed at implementing what is known as the Riparian law whereby any owner who has access to flowing water (watercourse) adjacent or through his property can make reasonable use of it for his own use. Another factor that affected laws and statutes in western United States was the practical use of scarce water for irrigation and domestic needs by Mormons who had settled in large numbers in this arid area of the country. The concept of Prior Appropriation Doctrine began to conflict with the Riparian law where the former favoured those who applied for water rights first on the first come first saved basis. On the whole, the general law was that any individual had the reasonable right to use water that flowed through his property without taking exclusive rights to dam the stream or river so that the remaining water will not reach those residing downstream. Current law in most water deficient states require owners to apply for water rights specifying the volume of water required to satisfy their personal and business needs. Gillian and Brown specify the requirements for such an application that takes into account “the source and amount of water to be used, the nature and location of the proposed diversion works, the amount of time needed to complete the work, the purpose for which the water is to be used, and any other information deemed relevant” (Gillian and Brown 36). Therefore, it is up to the state agencies to provide a right to an individual regarding a flowing water body. It is up to the individual states to decide upon the circumstances of the case to decide whether a particular water body belongs to an individual and how much of the water can be used by him for his own personal and business use. Here again, the complexities of law will prevent a clear definition of rights. But overall, the rights of society members to make use of a water body may supersede any individual rights that may harm the community in general. To conclude, it can be stated that the Marxian view seems more comprehensive as no citizen has the right to own any private property including water bodies. Works Cited McPherson, C B. Property – Mainstream and critical positions. University of Toronto Press, Toronto (Provided by the customer). Gillian, David M and Brown, Thomas C. Instream flow protection – Seeking a balance between Western Water Use. Island Press: Washington D C (provided by the customer). 2. How markets came to replace earlier economic systems Economic systems have undergone drastic changes from time to time ranging from the crude barter system to the complex market economy that one finds in the modern economies. It was Adam Smith who first emphasized on the need for division of labour and for him the exchange of commodities and marketing is motivated by the element of profit. In his view, a commodity becomes profitable only when its price exceeds “the rent of the land, and the price of the whole labor employed in raising, manufacturing, and bringing it to market” (Smith 22). Smith was in favor of a free market economy with a view to make profit while Marx, on the other hand, held that such an economic system will culminate in greed and subsequent exploitation of workers. In this regard, the studies by Heilbroner and Polanyi and their historical explanations of how markets came to replace earlier economic systems deserve attention. The authors by historically analyzing the development of economic systems repudiate Smith’s views on marketing and bartering. The paper tries to make a probe into the distinguishing features of the new market economy in comparison with earlier market systems as propagated by Heilbroner and Polanyi and in doing so the paper also attempts a comparative analysis of Worster’s and Marx’s views on commodities. Polanyi’s views on marketing motivations and customs regarding the evolution of marketing is based on his substantivist approach where he purports that the marketing function in any society is closely aligned with its culture, social practices and beliefs. He exhorts to discard Adam Smith’s hypothesis that primitive man sought gainful occupations and basing his studies on civilizations and societies from a variety of periods and regions argue that marketing essentially has a social function based on survival and growth of the society rather than for individual gain. Polanyi holds that a marketing function is essential in organized societies; however he believes that any person who shares his surplus commodities, whether it is an agricultural or animal product will enhance his position in the society and others respond to this generosity by helping him out with his needs of the time. This two way transaction can result either from individual or common reciprocation. In other words, a particular individual who has benefited from an act of generosity will respond when he/she is in a position to reciprocate to similar needs of others. The society also needs to have a common store of products which is collectively used to help its members. Polanyi also brings in the concept of redistribution which is an essential element in the marketing apart from reciprocation. For instance, the Trobriand Islanders used to provide a part of their excess produce over and above personal and extended family assistance to their chief. This will be used to feed the community during festivities and other celebrations or when they act as hosts to other tribes and communities who pay them occasional visits. Moreover this reciprocity and redistribution is extended beyond the borders of the village. The author states that this dual concept exists in various forms practically in all the communities in the world (including Greek and Roman empires) and is seen even today in some of the rural areas. These market practices over the years have been developed through strong regulations, laws, customs, and practices. Polanyi also claims that the land, labor, and capital are not commodities for purchase and sale as viewed by other economists. He states that labor is a human activity that is part of the society; land is nature and not produced by man, and capital (money) as a means of exchange. Adam Smith (and many others) views them in another way and states that rent, labor and profit are the profits that are available to the owners or providers of land, labor, and capital respectively (Polanyi 40-45). Polanyi feels that the concept of division of labor rose from this way of marketing and not through mans propensity for barter and profit. Polanyi is of the view that a total free market economy is not possible and some form of regulation (laws and statutes in modern times) will need to be in place. This could be viewed as true in the light of the current economic disaster seen in the United States and other parts of the world. Robert Heilbroner, following Polanyi, argues that even though man has been moved by dangers, uncertainties and the greed to own great wealth, the concept of profit through trade was alien to him in the past. Religious beliefs in England prohibited men from becoming traders. In his view, the current profit seeking scenario has been brought about by three reasons. Europe began to be politicized clearly along national lines. There arose a feeling of national pride and competition between the nations. Religious decay, advancement in transport and trade across boundaries has also contributed to thinking along the lines of profit from trade (Heilbroner). To conclude, it can be stated that neither Polanyi nor Heilbroner deals specifically with water as a commodity of trade. But if water can be equated to land, then Polanyi would argue that it is not a commodity, but part of nature. Donald Worster, known as a scholar of water, takes the opposite view and sides with Adam Smith and states that water “has now become a commodity that is bought and sold and used to make other commodities that can be bought and sold and carried to the market place” (Worster 52). Water can now be stored, harvested, used to generate power, and used as a means of transportation. It has now become a commodity and not a source of power or object of reverence as in the olden days. He refers to communities capable of the above as hydraulic societies where water is manipulated for its myriad uses. One of the most prominent thinkers who advocated against a free market economy was Karl Marx. He also shares some of the views of Polanyi and Heilbroner. Marx believed that production is for survival and growth of societies and not for profit. Marx feels that individuals in society are subject to forces of production, “both with what they produce and how they produce” (Marx 161). Private property will lead to feudalism and exploitation of workers. In that sense, Marx is closely aligned with the concept of reciprocation and redistribution as viewed by Polanyi and Heilbroner though the latter two are not primarily against private ownership of land and other resources. Works Cited Smith, Adam. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. T. Nelson: Original from the New York Public Library, 1864. Polanyi, Karl, The Great Transformation. Beacon Press: Boston (Provided by the customer). Heilbroner, Robert L. The Worldly Philosophers. 6th Edition. Simon & Schuster: New York (Provided by the customer). Smith, Adam. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. T. Nelson: Original from the New York Public Library, 1864. Worster, Donald. Rivers of empire: water, aridity, and the growth of the American West. Illustrated Edition: Oxford University Press US, 1992. Read More