Civic Property
| DOI | 10.1177/096466399700600203 |
| Published date | 01 June 1997 |
| Date | 01 June 1997 |
| Author | Gregory S. Alexander |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
CIVIC
PROPERTY
GREGORY
S.
ALEXANDER
Cornell
Law
School,
Ithaca,
USA
~
.
HE
NEED
for
institutions
that
are
effective
in
overcoming
collective
t
action
problems
could
hardly
be
greater
than
it
is
today.
As
a
growing
number
of
scholars
(Putnam,
1993, 1995;
Elshtain,
1995;
Fukuyama,
1995)
have
recognized,
civic
life,
or
what
de
Tocqueville
calls
’civil
society’,
is
in
an
enfeebled
condition
in
many
countries,
including
the
traditional
democracies
of
the
West.
By ’civil society’,
de
Tocqueville
meant
those
forms
of
social
interaction
in
which
individuals
deliberate
with
each
other
about
which
actions
will
best
contribute
to
creating
a
good
society.
Civic
life
encompasses
those
social
activities
in
which
groups
of
people
develop
what
de
Tocqueville
calls
’the
art
of
pursuing
in
common
the
objects
of
common
desires’
(Tocqueville,
1969: I,
513-14).
These
interactions
need
not
be
overtly
political.
Indeed,
the
traditional
institutions
of
civil
society
were
non-
political ;
they
included
churches,
hobby
groups,
fraternal
organizations
and
the
like.
While
not
overtly
political,
these
institutions
have
political
effects.
Traditionally,
they
have
been
the
primary
place
where
citizens
learn
and
develop
the
skills,
values
and
practices
that
are
essential
to
maintaining
a
robust
democracy.
They
create
what
has
come
to
be
called
’social
capital’
(Coleman,
1990;
Putnam,
1993) -
informal
norms
and
networks
of
trust
and
cooperation.
It
is
these
norms
and
networks
that
make
collective
action
poss-
ible.
There
is
considerable
evidence
that
the
institutions
of
civil
society
in
the
United
States
have
declined
over
the
past
30
years
(Putnam,
1996).
Its
people
simply
are
not
engaged
in
ongoing
community
organizations
and
institutions
as
they
were
in
the
middle
of
this
century.
In
the
prosaic
but
apt
metaphor
of
Robert
Putnam,
’they
don’t
bowl
in
leagues
any
longer;
they
bowl
alone’
SOCIAL
&
LEGAL
STUDIES
ISSN
0964 6639
Copyright
©
1997
SAGE
Publications,
London,
Thousand
Oaks,
CA
and
New
Delhi,
Vol.
6
(2),
217-234
217
218
(Putnam,
1995).
The
implications
of
this
development
for
democracy
can
hardly
be
exaggerated.
The
legitimacy
and
stability
of
the
formal
institutions
of
democracy
depend
upon
the
capacity
of
the
public
to
trust
and
to
cooperate
with
others.
A
society
in
which
people
are
characteristically
sus-
picious
of
and
withdrawn
from
each
other
is
one
in
which
democracy
cannot
long
survive.
It
is
no
surprise,
then,
that
commentators
who
have
noticed
the
decline
in
civil
society
have
warned
about
the
future of
US
democratic
tra-
ditions
in
the
public
sphere.
Is
this
development
inevitable?
Are
there
any
measures
that
can
be
taken
to
revitalize
civil
society?
After
first
explaining,
albeit
briefly,
why
I
believe
that
civic
life
has
declined
in
the
United
States
and
possibly
elsewhere,
I
examine
how
property
institutions
can
contribute
to
an
environment
in
which
the
social
engagement
necessary
to
create
social
capital
more
easily
occurs.
The
article
argues
private
property,
far
from
being
incompatible
with
civic
life,
is
absolutely
indispensable
to
its
existence.
The
question
is
not
whether
to
have
private
property
rights
but
what
sorts
of
institutional
forms
are
most
conducive
to
the
exercise
of
property
rights
in
socially
engaged
ways.
What
forms
of
property-based
social
institutions,
that
is,
are
best
suited
to
creating
social
capital?
I
will
sketch
the
general
contours
of
the
types
of
property
institutions
that
emphasize
the
civic
dimension
of
property
rights.
The
conception
of
property
that
these
institutions
instantiate
is
genuinely
liberal,
but
not
in
the
classical,
or
Lockean,
sense
of
that
term.
For
that
reason,
I
prefer
to
call
it
’civic
property’.
_
y
~
_
THE
DECLINE
OF
CIVIC
LIFE
.
These
are
not
great
times
for
democracy.
Despite
the
much
ballyhooed
tri-
umphs
of
democracy
over
communism
in
East-Central
Europe
and
over
apartheid
in
South
Africa,
democracy
around
the
world
is
frail
and
growing
frailer.
I
am
speaking
not
just
of
countries
like
Singapore
and
South
Korea,
where
beneath
the
outward
trappings
of
democracy
are
basically
totalitarian
regimes.
I
am
speaking
of
countries
in
the
West
where
democracy
is
thought
to
be
strongest,
including
(maybe
especially)
the
United
States.
If
the
for-
merly
communist
countries
of
East
and
Central
Europe
wish
to
develop
truly
democratic
societies,
they
would
be
well-advised
to
look
closely
at
what
has
happened
to
public
life
in
the
USA
over
the
past
30
years
and
to
use
our
experience
as
a
model
of
what
not
to
do.1
To
be
sure,
the
forms
of
democracy
-
its
elected
legislatures
and
its
formal
political
rights -
remain
in
place
in
the
USA,
but
the
substance -
the
rich
porridge
of
social
engagement -
has
been
diluted
into
a
thin
gruel.
Symptoms
of
the
decline
of
democracy
abound
these
days.
In
continental
Europe,
fascism
is
experiencing
a
revival
that
is
seriously
disquieting.
One
datum
evidencing
this
trend
is
the
recent
election
of
neo-Fascists
in
Italy.
In
India,
the
world’s
largest
democracy,
distrust
among
different
segments
of
the
population
has
so
seriously
eroded
the
conditions
of
democracy
that
violence
’
<
.
’
To continue reading
Request your trial