The political economy of our time asserts that value equates to monetary price. This tendency to equate value in terms of monetary price continues in case of the value of land. An understanding of plural values of land encourages us to look beyond monetary price. The article considers two land acquisition cases in India, as a source of empirical data to demonstrate the existence of plural value of land and limitations of monetary price–based valuation theory.
AlexanderG. S. (1982). The concept of property in private and constitutional law: The ideology of the scientific turn in legal analysis. Cornell Law Faculty Publications, 82, 1545–1599.
2.
AlexanderG. S.PenalverE. M. (2012). An introduction to property theory(Cambridge introductions to philosophy and law). Cambridge University Press.
3.
AltermanR. (Ed.) (2010). Takings international: A comparative perspective on land use regulations and compensation rights(1st ed.). American Bar Association Section of State and Local Government Law.
4.
AndersonE. (1993/1995). Value in ethics economics(2nd print ed.). Harvard University Press.
5.
AndersonK. (2010). Globalization’s effects on world agricultural trade, 1960–2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 3007–3021.
6.
AwokuseT. O.DukeJ. M. (2006). The causal structure of land price determinants. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d’agroeconomie, 54, 227–245.
7.
BehereP.BhiseM. (2009). Farmers’ suicide: Across culture. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 51, 242–243. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.58286
8.
BodhP. C. (2019). Farmers’ suicides in India: A policy malignancy. Taylor & Francis.
9.
CerneaM. M. (2008). Compensation and benefit sharing: Why resettlement policies and practices must be reformed. Water Science and Engineering, 1, 89–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1674-2370(15)30021-1
10.
ChomskyN. (1969). Aspects of the theory of syntax. The MIT Press.
11.
ChomskyN. (2007). Approaching UG from below. In GärtnerH.-M.SauerlandU. (Eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics. Studies in Generative Grammar. Mouton de Gruyter.
12.
ChristensenF. K. (2014). Understanding value changes in the urban development process and the impact of municipal planning. Land Use Policy, 36, 113–121.
13.
ClarkeA. P.BertaudA.PatelB.PhatakV. K. (2010). Working with the market: A new approach to reducing urban slums in India(Policy Research Working Paper Series). World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-5475
14.
DavyB. (2012). Land policy: Planning and the spatial consequences of property. Ashgate.
15.
DavyB. (2014). Polyrational property: Rules for the many uses of land. International Journal of the Commons, 8(2), 472–492. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.455
16.
De SotoH. (2000). The mystery of capital. Blackswan.
17.
Dey BiswasS. (2020a). Land acquisition and compensation in India: Mysteries of valuation. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29481-6
18.
Dey BiswasS. (2020b). Social citizenship and plural values of land: Land acquisition cases from India. Social Policy and Society, 19(2), 331–342. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746419000496
19.
DharS. (2014). West Bengal woman says gang-raped on orders of panchayat. https://in.reuters.com/article/rape-panchayat-west-bengal-love/west-bengal-woman-says-gang-raped-on-orders-of-panchayat-idINDEEA0M0AA20140123
20.
Directorate of Registration and Stamp Revenue (DRSR) (West Bengal). (2018). Market value of land. http://wbregistration.gov.in
21.
EvansA. W. (1983). The determination of the price of land. Urban Studies, 20, 119–129.
22.
EvansA. W. (2004). Economics and land use planning. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470690895
23.
Financial Times. (2014). The age of Anthropocene: Masters of the earth. https://www.ft.com/content/23eecd76-7fb2-11e4-adff-00144feabdc0. Accessed 4 Sept 2018
24.
FlyvbjergB. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.
25.
GlumacB.HerreraM.LicheronJ. (2019). A hedonic urban land price index. Land Use Policy, 81, 802–812.
26.
GluszakM.ZygmuntR. (2018). Development density, administrative decisions, and land values: An empirical investigation. Land Use Policy, 70, 153–161.
27.
Government of India (GOI). (2009). Guidelines for valuation of immovable properties 2009 (Technical Report). Ministry of Finance. https://cpwd.gov.in/Publication/GuidelinesProperties2009.pdf
28.
HanW.ZhangX.ZhengX. (2020). Land use regulation and urban land value: Evidence from China. Land Use Policy, 92, 104432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104432
29.
HansjürgensB.Schröter-SchlaackC.BerghöferA.LienhoopN. (2016). Justifying social values of nature: Economic reasoning beyond self-interested preferences. Ecosystem Services, 22(B), 228–237.
30.
HardinG. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.
31.
IsaacD.O’LearyJ. (2012). Property valuation principles. Macmillan International Higher Education.
32.
KaushalA. (2015). Confronting farmer suicides in India. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 40, 46–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375415581258
33.
KlickJ.ParchomovskyG. (2017). The value of the right to exclude: An empirical assessment. http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1637/
34.
KolocekM. (2017). The human right to housing in the face of land policy and social citizenship. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53489-3
35.
MaJ.ChengJ. C.JiangF.ChenW.ZhangJ. (2020). Analyzing driving factors of land values in urban scale based on big data and non-linear machine learning techniques. Land Use Policy, 94, 104537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104537
36.
MasonE. (2018). Value pluralism. In ZaltaE. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2018 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/value-pluralism/
37.
MathurH. M. (2013). Displacement and resettlement in India: The human cost of development(Routledge contemporary South Asia series, vol. 69). Routledge.
38.
MerrillT. W. (1998). Property and the right to exclude. Nebraska Law Review, 77, 730–755.
39.
MikhailJ. (2011). Elements of moral cognition: Rawls’ linguistic analogy and the cognitive science of moral and legal judgment. Cambridge University Press.
40.
MitraS.SarkarA. (2003). Relative profitability from production and trade: A study of selected potato markets in West Bengal. Economic and Political Weekly, 38, 4694–4699. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4414224
41.
NielsenK. B. (2018). Land dispossession and everyday politics in rural eastern India. Anthem Press.
42.
NussbaumM. C. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. The Tanner lectures on human values. Belknap Press.
43.
O’FlahertyB. (2005). City economics. Paperbackshop.
PellisseryS.LødemelI. (2020). Property and social citizenship: Social policy beyond the North. Social Policy and Society, 19(2), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746419000575
46.
RodasJ. M. C.CastanhoR. A.FernándezJ. C.GómezJ. M. N. (2020). Sustainable valuation of land for development. Adding value with urban planning progress. A Spanish case study. Land Use Policy, 92, 104456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104456
47.
RoseC. M. (1986). The comedy of the commons: Commerce, custom, and inherently public property(Faculty Scholarship Series, Paper 1828). https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1828/
48.
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). (2008). Valuation standards. Technical representative. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
49.
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). (2012). RICS valuation—Professional standards (Global en.). Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. ISBN: 978-184219-781-3.
50.
SahaP.BandopadhyayS.KumarC.KumarC.MitraC. (2020). Multi-approach synergic investigation between land surface temperature and land-use land-cover. Journal of Earth System Science, 129, 74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-020-1342-z
51.
SandelM. (2009). Justice: What is the right thing to do?Penguin Books.
52.
SandelM. J. (2012). What money can’t buy: The moral limits of markets. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
53.
SanderS.DendonckerN.Martín-LópezB.BartonD. N.Gomez-BaggethunE.BoeraeveF.McGrathF. L.VierikkoK.GenelettiD.SeveckeK. J.PipartN.PrimmerE.MederlyP.SchmidtS.AragãoA.BaralH.BarkR. H.BricenoT.BrognaD. … WashbournC. L. (2016). A new valuation school: Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosystem Services, 22(B), 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.007
54.
SenA. (2005). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 6, 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880500120491
55.
ShapiroE.MackminD.DaviesK. (2012). Modern methods of valuation (11th ed.). Estates Gazette.
56.
SmithA. (1763/1896). Lectures on justice, police, revenue arms. University of Glasgow (reported by a student in 1763 and edited with an introduction and notes, by Edwin Cannan, Clarendon Press). http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2621
57.
SmithA. (1776/1982). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Liberty Classics.
58.
SudN. (2014). The men in the middle: A missing dimension in global land deals. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(4), 593–612.
59.
The European Group of Valuers’ Associations (TEGoVA). (2016). European valuation standards 2016. TEGoVA. https://www.tegova.org
60.
The Outdoor Recreational Act. (2018). Act of 28 June 1957 No. 16(Norwegian Law). https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/outdoor-recreation-act/id172932/ or https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1957-06-28-16
61.
The Right to Public Access. (2019). This is the right of public access (Swedish Law). http://www.swedishepa.se/Environmental-objectives-and-cooperation/Swedish-environmental-work/Work-areas/This-is-the-Right-of-Public-Access/
62.
The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). (2016). Uniform appraisal standards for federal land acquisitions 2016. The Appraisal Foundation.
63.
UN Habitat, & GLTN. (2008). Secure land rights for all. UN-Habitat.
64.
von WieserF. (1889/1893). Natural value. In SmartW. (Ed). Macmillan. http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1685
65.
WangW.van NoorloosF.SpitT. (2020). Stakeholder power relations in land value capture: Comparing public (China) and private (U.S.) dominant regimes. Land Use Policy, 91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104357
66.
YangY. (2018). Land use and social rights: A boundary perspective on the urban village in contemporary China. Bodenpolitik, Bodenmanagement und kommunales Vermessungswesen. School of Spatial Planning. TU Dortmund University. http://dx.doi.org/10.17877/DE290R-19138
67.
YinR. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. SAGE Publications.
