IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/fan/aimaim/vhtml10.3280-aim2016-001004.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Propriet? agraria, territorio e inclusione

Author

Listed:
  • Matteo Ferrari

Abstract

Il contributo si interroga se alcune forme di propriet? agraria contemplino un diritto ad essere inclusi. Tradizionalmente il diritto di propriet? ? associato allo jus excludendi; la possibilit? di un diritto ad essere inclusi ?, al contrario, poco consi-derata. Dopo aver analizzato il ruolo dello jus excludendi, sottolineando come la dottrina agraristica abbia contribuito significativamente ad individuarne i limiti, il contributo introduce il diritto ad essere inclusi, distinguendo tra una versione debo-le e una forte. Mentre la prima si risolve in una semplice riproposizione del discorso sui limiti della propriet?, la seconda, prevedendo la possibilit? che terzi abbiano il diritto di divenire co-titolari di una risorsa altrui, ha carattere maggiormente in-novativo. La propriet? agraria contempla alcuni casi in cui esiste un diritto ad esse-re inclusi in senso forte. In particolare, il contributo offre due esempi: le propriet? collettive agrarie e la disciplina di Dop e Igp. In entrambi le ipotesi, l?analisi indica come la versione forte del diritto ad essere inclusi sia giustificata in ragione della centralit? del territorio e di esigenze di cooperazione.

Suggested Citation

  • Matteo Ferrari, 2016. "Propriet? agraria, territorio e inclusione," AGRICOLTURA ISTITUZIONI MERCATI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(1), pages 53-96.
    • Handle: RePEc:fan:aimaim:v:html10.3280/aim2016-001004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.francoangeli.it/riviste/Scheda_Rivista.aspx?IDArticolo=62056&Tipo=ArticoloPDF
    Download Restriction: Single articles can be downloaded buying download credits, for info: https://www.francoangeli.it/DownloadCredit
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antonio Jannarelli, 2007. "Il dibattito sulla propriet? privata negli anni Trenta del Novecento," AGRICOLTURA ISTITUZIONI MERCATI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2007(1), pages 21-52.
    2. McCloskey, Donald N., 1972. "The Enclosure of Open Fields: Preface to a Study of Its Impact on the Efficiency of English Agriculture in the Eighteenth Century," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(1), pages 15-35, March.
    3. Dagan, Hanoch, 2011. "Property: Values and Institutions," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199737864.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jaume Ventura & Hans-Joachim Voth, 2015. "Debt into growth: How sovereign debt accelerated the first Industrial Revolution," Economics Working Papers 1483, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    2. Goksel Armagan & Suleyman Nizam, 2012. "Productivity and efficiency scores of dairy farms: the case of Turkey," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 351-358, January.
    3. Rossi, Enrico, 2020. "Reconsidering the dual nature of property rights: personal property and capital in the law and economics of property rights," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 105840, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Daniel Barbezat, 2011. "The Economic History of European Growth," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 51, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Nir Mualam & Debora Sotto, 2020. "From Progressive Property to Progressive Cities: Can Socially Sustainable Interpretations of Property Contribute toward Just and Inclusive City-Planning? Global Lessons," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-29, June.
    6. Bekar, Cliff T. & Reed, Clyde G., 2003. "Open fields, risk, and land divisibility," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 308-325, July.
    7. Lambert, Thomas, 2021. "The Baran Ratio, Investment, and British Economic Growth and Investment," MPRA Paper 109546, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Joshua C. Hall, 2017. "A "Model" Model: McCloskey and the Craft of Economics," Working Papers 17-09, Department of Economics, West Virginia University.
    9. Antras, Pol & Voth, Hans-Joachim, 2003. "Factor prices and productivity growth during the British industrial revolution," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 52-77, January.
    10. Stefano Fenoaltea, 1988. "Transaction Costs, Whig History, and the Common Fields," Politics & Society, , vol. 16(2-3), pages 171-240, June.
    11. Paolo Crosetto & Alexia Gaudeul & Gerhard Riener, 2012. "Partnerships, Imperfect Monitoring and Outside Options: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-052, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    12. McDonald, John & Snooks, G. D., 1986. "Domesday Economy: A New Approach to Anglo-Norman History," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198285243.
    13. Finley, Theresa, 2021. "Free riding in the monastery: Club goods, the cistercian order and agricultural investment in Ancien Regime France," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 318-336.
    14. Michael Kopsidis & Nikolaus Wolf, 2012. "Agricultural Productivity Across Prussia During the Industrial Revolution: A ThŸnen Perspective," Working Papers 0013, European Historical Economics Society (EHES).
    15. Nina Boberg-Fazlic & Markus Lampe & Pablo Martinelli Lasheras & Paul Sharp, 2020. "Winners and Losers from Enclosure: Evidence from Danish Land Inequality 1682-1895," Working Papers 0178, European Historical Economics Society (EHES).
    16. Berge, Erling & Haugset, Anne Sigrid, 2015. "Enclosure Norwegian Style: the Withering Away of an Institution," CLTS Working Papers 2/15, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 11 Oct 2019.
    17. Francesco GUALA, 2010. "Reciprocity: weak or strong? What punishment experiments do (and do not) demonstrate," Departmental Working Papers 2010-23, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    18. Lambert, Thomas, 2020. "Investment Expenditures and the Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism," MPRA Paper 101396, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Mesbah Motamed & Raymond Florax & William Masters, 2014. "Agriculture, transportation and the timing of urbanization: Global analysis at the grid cell level," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 339-368, September.
    20. François Facchini, 2011. "Paysages et théorie (s) du marché," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-00637001, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fan:aimaim:v:html10.3280/aim2016-001004. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Stefania Rosato (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.francoangeli.it/riviste/sommario.aspx?IDRivista=122 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.