Ethics of property, illegal settlements and the right to subsistence

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to examine how illegal settlers and poor families struggle for basic necessities through land invasions, covert practices and illegal sabotage, examining how fundamental rights to subsistence and dignity are superior to private property claims.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper combines two qualitative research projects that examined property rights in Kyrgyzstan, conducting semi‐structured interviews with poor groups, elites and state officials. One project was conducted between 2009‐2010, examining two illegal settlements and a squatted building in the capital Bishkek, and the other project took place between 2007‐2008 in four villages in Osh region.

Findings

It was found that illegal settlers and poor families deliberate upon the moral aspects of land and property, though sometimes their judgements are distorted by nationalist feelings and racialised identities. Poor and propertyless groups struggle for basic necessities, lacking access to social rights and facing class contempt and state coercion.

Research limitations/implications

The authors criticise de Soto's ideas on legalising squatters' holdings, suggesting that his property rights approach to land offers a flawed moral vision for society and a mis‐understanding of illegal settlements.

Practical implications

International donors need to re‐think development strategies for increasing growth and reducing poverty, and for Kyrgyzstan to abandon the national residential registration system (propiska).

Originality/value

The authors' moral responsibilities approach on property recognises the importance of land and valuable resources for human capabilities, the competing obligations of the state and the role of moral propriety and sentiments in shaping responsibilities towards vulnerable and poor groups.

Citation

Sanghera, B. and Satybaldieva, E. (2012), "Ethics of property, illegal settlements and the right to subsistence", International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 32 No. 1/2, pp. 96-114. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443331211201798