The Working Group on Property, Citizenship, and Social Entrepreneurism (PCSE) ( is sponsored by the Syracuse University College of Law and its Program in Law and Market Economy. The Program in Law and Market Economy is an interdisciplinary program focusing on the relationship among law, markets, and culture. Within this context the Working Group on PCSE brings together experts from a variety of institutions to discuss and explore issues related to property law, governance, and globalization. The Group will provide an ongoing forum for the publication of important new works.

Table of Contents

What is Title Guarantee Worth in Land Markets? Evidence from Bengaluru, India

Madalasa Venkataraman, Indian Institute of Management (IIMB), Bangalore - Century Real Estate Research Initiative

Social Innovation

Peter Lee, University of California, Davis - School of Law

'We Don't Follow, We Lead': How New York City Will Save Mortgage Loans by Condemning Them

Robert C. Hockett, Cornell University - Law School

The Reach of the State: Work Units, Family Ties and 'Harmonious Demolition'

Kevin J. O'Brien, University of California, Berkeley - Charles and Louise Travers Department of Political Science
Yanhua Deng, School of Public Administration, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics

Environmental Federalism's Tug of War within

Erin Ryan, Lewis & Clark Law School

Governing Knowledge Commons -- Introduction & Chapter 1

Brett M. Frischmann, Yeshiva University - Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Michael J. Madison, University of Pittsburgh - School of Law
Katherine J. Strandburg, New York University School of Law

Sponsored by Syracuse University, College of Law

"What is Title Guarantee Worth in Land Markets? Evidence from Bengaluru, India" Free Download
IIM Bangalore Research Paper No. 473

MADALASA VENKATARAMAN, Indian Institute of Management (IIMB), Bangalore - Century Real Estate Research Initiative

Land reforms require urgent attention in emerging market economies, and there is a vast body of literature that deals with the economic impact land reforms, especially land titling (Acemoglu et al., 2001). India, like other developing economies, has a presumptive titling system which is notoriously inefficient: a law that is in the draft stages of consultation is the Draft Land Titling Bill, 2011, which seeks to replace presumptive titles with conclusive ones. However, there is no study that has looked at the cost of not having an appropriate titling system. In this study, I attempt to quantify the premium paid towards title by using a quasi-natural experiment on differential titles that is available in the Indian market, utilizing land prices in Bangalore, India. The differential title to land comes about as a result of State's activity in using eminent domain to acquire land parcels, conferring superior title on the parcels so acquired. A hedonic model is applied to a data set of 2263 observations of appraised land values to tease out the impact of guaranteed land title on land prices.

"Social Innovation" Free Download
Washington University Law Review, Vol. 92, No. 1, 2014
UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 407

PETER LEE, University of California, Davis - School of Law

This Article provides the first legal examination of the immensely valuable but underappreciated phenomenon of social innovation. Innovations such as cognitive behavioral therapy, microfinance, and strategies to reduce hospital-based infections greatly enhance social welfare yet operate completely outside of the patent system, the primary legal mechanism for promoting innovation. This Article draws on empirical studies to elucidate this significant kind of innovation and explore its divergence from the classic model of technological innovation championed by the patent system. In so doing, it illustrates how patent law exhibits a rather crabbed, particularistic conception of innovation. Among other characteristics, innovation in the patent context is individualistic, arises from a discrete origin and history, and prioritizes novelty. Much social innovation, however, arises from communities rather than individual inventors, evolves from multiple histories, and entails expanding that which already exists from one context to another. These attributes, moreover, apply in large part to technological innovation as well, thus revealing how patent law relies upon and reinforces a rather distorted view of the innovative processes it seeks to promote. Moving from the descriptive to the prescriptive, this Article cautions against extending exclusive rights to social innovations and suggests several nonpatent mechanisms for accelerating this valuable activity. Finally, it examines the theoretical implications of social innovation for patent law, thus helping to contribute to a more holistic framework for innovation law and policy.

"'We Don't Follow, We Lead': How New York City Will Save Mortgage Loans by Condemning Them" Free Download
124 Yale Law Journal Forum 131 (2014)

ROBERT C. HOCKETT, Cornell University - Law School

This brief invited essay lays out in summary form the eminent domain plan for securitized underwater mortgage loans that the author has been advocating and helping to implement for some years now. It does so with particular attention in this case to New York City, which is now actively considering the plan. The essay's first part addresses the plan's necessity. Its second part lays out the plan's basic mechanics. The third part then systematically addresses and dispatches the battery of remarkably weak legal and policy arguments commonly proffered by opponents of the plan.

"The Reach of the State: Work Units, Family Ties and 'Harmonious Demolition'" Free Download
The China Journal, No. 74 (July 2015), Forthcoming

KEVIN J. O'BRIEN, University of California, Berkeley - Charles and Louise Travers Department of Political Science
YANHUA DENG, School of Public Administration, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics

When faced with homeowners who refuse to accept appropriation of their property, local authorities often use family ties to extend the state's reach. To complete urban renewal, municipal demolition offices turn to resisters’ relatives who work for government bureaus, state-owned factories, schools, and hospitals. Under pressure and the threat of sanctions, many work-unit members agree to cajole their family members into signing demolition agreements, often by tapping into "feelings of affection" and emotional blackmail. Beyond emptying a neighborhood, "harmonious demolition" has many consequences: it can turn relatives against each other, lead to divorce, and produce disillusionment and anger. Although "demolition by implicating family members" was banned in 2010, it continues. Using vertical ties to pressure unit members and horizontal ties to influence relatives does not herald a softer authoritarianism, but instead alienates homeowners and work-unit members alike.

"Environmental Federalism's Tug of War within" Free Download
Concluding chapter in Kalyani Robbins, ed., THE LAW AND POLICY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FEDERALISM: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS (Edward Elgar, 2015)

ERIN RYAN, Lewis & Clark Law School

Anyone paying attention has noticed that many of the most controversial issues in American governance — health care reform, marriage rights, immigration, drug law, and others — involve questions of federalism. The intensity of these disputes reflects inexorable pressure on all levels of government to meet the increasingly complicated challenges of governance in an ever more interconnected world, where the answers to jurisdictional questions are less and less obvious. Yet even as federalism dilemmas continue to erupt all from all corners, environmental law remains at the forefront of controversy, and it is likely to do so for some time. From mining to nuclear waste to water pollution to climate change, environmental federalism cases have always been among the most contentious on the bench, producing some of the most fractured judicial opinions on record. Why is that?

In fact, environmental law is uniquely prone to federalism discord because it inevitably confronts the core question with which federalism grapples — who gets to decide? — in contexts where state and federal claims to power are simultaneously at their strongest. Environmental problems tend to match the need to regulate the harmful use of specific lands (among the most sacred of local prerogatives) with the need to regulate border-crossing harms caused by these uses (among the strongest of national prerogatives). As a result, it is often impossible to solve the problem without engaging authority on both ends of the spectrum — and disputes erupt when local and national ideas on how best to proceed diverge. Ongoing jurisdictional controversies in energy policy, pollution law, and natural resource management reveal environmental law as the canary in federalism’s coal mine, showcasing the underlying reasons for jurisdictional conflict in all areas of law. And they indicate the critical need to better cope with the problems of jurisdictional overlap at the level of federalism theory.

Concluding the book, this chapter explores why environmental law regularly raises such thorny questions of federalism, and what the broader federalism discourse can learn from environmental law. Drawing from the theoretical framework that I introduced in FEDERALISM AND THE TUG OF WAR WITHIN (Oxford, 2012:, Part II reviews the central objectives of federalism, examining the conflicting values they imply and the resulting tension that suffuses all federalism-sensitive governance. Part III evaluates why federalism conflicts are heightened in the context of environmental law. Divisiveness not only reflects the intense competition among federalism values in environmental governance, it also provides key insights into the core theoretical dilemmas of jurisdictional overlap more generally. Part IV probes how environmental law has adapted to manage the challenges of overlap by asymmetrically allocating local, state, and federal authority within various models of collaborative or coordinated governance.

Part V concludes with consideration of what the larger discourse can learn from the dynamic federalism innovations emerging from within environmental governance. Environmental law demonstrates that the most successful multiscalar governance is conducted through processes of consultation, compromise, and coordination that engage stakeholders at all levels of jurisdictional scale. The broader federalism discourse is increasingly recognizing environmental federalism for lighting a path away from the entrenched “zero-sum? model, which treats every assertion of authority at one jurisdictional level as a loss of authority for the others. Many areas of environmental law doubtlessly remain imperfect in their implementation of these ideals. Still, every-day environmental governance shows us that, at the end of the day, good interjurisdictional governance is essentially a project of negotiation.

"Governing Knowledge Commons -- Introduction & Chapter 1" Free Download
Governing Knowledge Commons, Brett M. Frischmann, Michael J. Madison and Katherine J. Strandburg, eds., Oxford University Press, 2014
Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 438
U. of Pittsburgh Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-32
NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 14-49

BRETT M. FRISCHMANN, Yeshiva University - Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
MICHAEL J. MADISON, University of Pittsburgh - School of Law
KATHERINE J. STRANDBURG, New York University School of Law

“Knowledge commons? describes the institutionalized community governance of the sharing and, in some cases, creation, of information, science, knowledge, data, and other types of intellectual and cultural resources. It is the subject of enormous recent interest and enthusiasm with respect to policymaking about innovation, creative production, and intellectual property. Taking that enthusiasm as its starting point, Governing Knowledge Commons argues that policymaking should be based on evidence and a deeper understanding of what makes commons institutions work. It offers a systematic way to study knowledge commons, borrowing and building on Elinor Ostrom’s Nobel Prize-winning research on natural resource commons. It proposes a framework for studying knowledge commons that is adapted to the unique attributes of knowledge and information, describing the framework in detail and explaining how to put it into context both with respect to commons research and with respect to innovation and information policy. Eleven detailed case studies apply and discuss the framework exploring knowledge commons across a wide variety of scientific and cultural domains.


About this eJournal

Sponsored by: Syracuse University, College of Law.

The eJournal of Property, Citizenship, and Social Entrepreneurism (PCSE) is an interdisciplinary journal dedicated to exploring the core principle that a just and accessible property law system is the basis for both good citizenship and successful socio-legal development. This eJournal distributes working and accepted paper abstracts primarily concerned with matters of property as they relate to the human process of exchange, the fostering of democratic institutions, the building of sustainable communities, the stewardship of the global environment and its natural resources, the promotion of citizenship, and the development of market institutions that respond to and promote a worthy social mission.

Our goal is to explore the legal infrastructure of property in broad terms: encompassing concerns for real, personal, intangible, and intellectual property, as well as looking at property related financial markets (including real estate mortgages, personal property security interests, licensing, and securitization).

Making reference to specific examples of property (in its various forms) we will address the following types of issues.

1) To what extent do property rights reduce or eliminate the need for government regulation (particularly command and control-regulation) while enhancing the environment for open market approaches to economic development and globalization? This includes consideration of the way in which property rights actually reduce transaction costs, correct for problems raised by the tragedy of the commons, and organize society in a way that fosters efficient economic development.

2) What is the role of privatization of State controlled property in the transformation process? How should privatization be approached and what distinctions need to be made between public, private, and state property? This includes discussion of necessary support infrastructure for successful privatization, and consideration of the need for government control over private companies dealing with public utilities, natural resources, and transportation systems.

3) To what extent do property rights enhance citizenship and advance democratic institutions? What role does private property play in creating political elites and the structures needed for controlled development and social transformation? How can property rights be used to make the rule of law more tangible, and to promote civic participation and inclusion? How are property rights related to citizenship issues respecting matters of race, gender, ethnicity, urban or rural location, and other factors?

4) To what extent do property rights promote entrepreneurism, including social entrepreneurism focusing on values other than mere maximization of economic wealth and efficiency? How can property rights fuel economic development while helping to reduce poverty?

5) In a world of global financial institutions such as the European Development Bank, The World Bank, and the IMF, with the power to influence indirect or quasi-law making, how are global property law systems to develop and become institutionalized? How do these institutions facilitate problems related to globalization and harmonization, and what are the socio-legal implications from such activity?


To submit your research to SSRN, sign in to the SSRN User HeadQuarters, click the My Papers link on left menu and then the Start New Submission button at top of page.

Distribution Services

If your organization is interested in increasing readership for its research by starting a Research Paper Series, or sponsoring a Subject Matter eJournal, please email:

Distributed by

Legal Scholarship Network (LSN), a division of Social Science Electronic Publishing (SSEP) and Social Science Research Network (SSRN)



Northwestern University - School of Law, Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)

Stanford Law School, Columbia Law School, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)

Please contact us at the above addresses with your comments, questions or suggestions for LSN-Sub.