财产观念:近代实证研究方法的比较回顾

Q3 Social Sciences
P. Babie, Peter D. Burdon, F. Rimini, Cherie Metcalf, Geir Stenseth
{"title":"财产观念:近代实证研究方法的比较回顾","authors":"P. Babie, Peter D. Burdon, F. Rimini, Cherie Metcalf, Geir Stenseth","doi":"10.2979/INDJGLOLEGSTU.26.2.0401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:While theory offers important insights into property's normative content, it sometimes fails to tell us about what people understand property to mean and how they interact with those things said to be owned by them. This has significant implications for some of the challenges facing humanity, including climate change, unequal distributions of wealth and resources, biodiversity loss, and innovation. In response, a growing body of literature is emerging that looks at property through a different lens; rather than theorizing property in an abstract way or attempting to craft a normative account of and justification for the institution, this new scholarship focuses on everyday people's views and experiences—what some call the psychology of property and what we call the idea of property. This article presents a comparative review of empirical research methods that the authors have recently used to study the idea (or psychology) of property and provides evidence drawn from the United States, Canada, and Australia: (i) Stenseth's work on behavioral economics and property law; (ii) Metcalf's empirical research drawing on social psychology and behavioral economics; and (iii) the small-scale, qualitative study conducted by Babie, Burdon, and da Rimini. All three studies suggest that individuals hold an idea of property that exists independently from the formal law found in the jurisdiction studied. Moreover, while individuals do appear willing to self-regulate with reference to the environment or for the public good, for the most part people's idea of property is one that allows for promoting individual desires. Whether this is innate, culturally determined, or both is beyond this article's scope, but we conclude that this is an important area for future research and investigation.","PeriodicalId":39188,"journal":{"name":"Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies","volume":"26 1","pages":"401 - 436"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Idea of Property: A Comparative Review of Recent Empirical Research Methods\",\"authors\":\"P. Babie, Peter D. Burdon, F. Rimini, Cherie Metcalf, Geir Stenseth\",\"doi\":\"10.2979/INDJGLOLEGSTU.26.2.0401\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:While theory offers important insights into property's normative content, it sometimes fails to tell us about what people understand property to mean and how they interact with those things said to be owned by them. This has significant implications for some of the challenges facing humanity, including climate change, unequal distributions of wealth and resources, biodiversity loss, and innovation. In response, a growing body of literature is emerging that looks at property through a different lens; rather than theorizing property in an abstract way or attempting to craft a normative account of and justification for the institution, this new scholarship focuses on everyday people's views and experiences—what some call the psychology of property and what we call the idea of property. This article presents a comparative review of empirical research methods that the authors have recently used to study the idea (or psychology) of property and provides evidence drawn from the United States, Canada, and Australia: (i) Stenseth's work on behavioral economics and property law; (ii) Metcalf's empirical research drawing on social psychology and behavioral economics; and (iii) the small-scale, qualitative study conducted by Babie, Burdon, and da Rimini. All three studies suggest that individuals hold an idea of property that exists independently from the formal law found in the jurisdiction studied. Moreover, while individuals do appear willing to self-regulate with reference to the environment or for the public good, for the most part people's idea of property is one that allows for promoting individual desires. Whether this is innate, culturally determined, or both is beyond this article's scope, but we conclude that this is an important area for future research and investigation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39188,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"401 - 436\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2979/INDJGLOLEGSTU.26.2.0401\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2979/INDJGLOLEGSTU.26.2.0401","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:虽然理论对财产的规范性内容提供了重要的见解,但它有时不能告诉我们人们对财产的理解,以及他们如何与那些被他们拥有的东西相互作用。这对人类面临的一些挑战具有重大影响,包括气候变化、财富和资源分配不均、生物多样性丧失和创新。作为回应,越来越多的文献开始从不同的角度看待房地产;这种新的学术研究不是以抽象的方式将财产理论化,也不是试图为这一制度制定一种规范的解释和辩护,而是关注日常生活中人们的观点和经历——有些人称之为财产心理学,我们称之为财产观念。本文对作者最近用于研究财产观念(或心理学)的实证研究方法进行了比较回顾,并提供了来自美国、加拿大和澳大利亚的证据:(i) Stenseth在行为经济学和财产法方面的工作;梅特卡夫借鉴社会心理学和行为经济学的实证研究;(iii) Babie, Burdon和da Rimini进行的小规模定性研究。这三项研究都表明,个人持有一种独立于所研究司法管辖区的正式法律之外的财产观念。此外,虽然个人似乎愿意根据环境或公共利益进行自我调节,但在大多数情况下,人们对财产的看法是允许促进个人欲望的。无论这是天生的,文化决定的,还是两者兼而有之,这都超出了本文的范围,但我们认为这是未来研究和调查的一个重要领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Idea of Property: A Comparative Review of Recent Empirical Research Methods
Abstract:While theory offers important insights into property's normative content, it sometimes fails to tell us about what people understand property to mean and how they interact with those things said to be owned by them. This has significant implications for some of the challenges facing humanity, including climate change, unequal distributions of wealth and resources, biodiversity loss, and innovation. In response, a growing body of literature is emerging that looks at property through a different lens; rather than theorizing property in an abstract way or attempting to craft a normative account of and justification for the institution, this new scholarship focuses on everyday people's views and experiences—what some call the psychology of property and what we call the idea of property. This article presents a comparative review of empirical research methods that the authors have recently used to study the idea (or psychology) of property and provides evidence drawn from the United States, Canada, and Australia: (i) Stenseth's work on behavioral economics and property law; (ii) Metcalf's empirical research drawing on social psychology and behavioral economics; and (iii) the small-scale, qualitative study conducted by Babie, Burdon, and da Rimini. All three studies suggest that individuals hold an idea of property that exists independently from the formal law found in the jurisdiction studied. Moreover, while individuals do appear willing to self-regulate with reference to the environment or for the public good, for the most part people's idea of property is one that allows for promoting individual desires. Whether this is innate, culturally determined, or both is beyond this article's scope, but we conclude that this is an important area for future research and investigation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信