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

The City as a Commons

Sheila Foster, Fordham University School of Law
Christian Iaione, Università degli Studi Guglielmo Marconi, LUISS LabGov - LABoratory for the GOVernance of the commons

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Concludes that the Actavis Ruling Applies to Non-Cash Payments (Lamictal)

Michael A. Carrier, Rutgers University School of Law - Camden

Bryant Park as a Site of Production: Revenue and Social Control

Emily Kaufman, University of Kentucky

What is Legal and What is Not: Examining the Relationship between Place Marketing, Place Branding, and Legal Geography in Heterotopias

Evgenia Kanellopoulou, University of Salford
Nikos Foivos Ntounis, Manchester Metropolitan University - Business School

Property and Secrecy

Amnon Lehavi, Interdisciplinary Center Herzliyah - Radzyner School of Law

Sponsored by Syracuse University, College of Law

"The City as a Commons" Free Download
Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2653084

SHEILA FOSTER, Fordham University School of Law
CHRISTIAN IAIONE, Università degli Studi Guglielmo Marconi, LUISS LabGov - LABoratory for the GOVernance of the commons

As rapid urbanization intensifies around the world, so do contestations over how city space is utilized and for whose benefit urban revitalization is undertaken. The most prominent sites of this contestation are efforts by city residents to claim important urban goods — open squares, parks, abandoned or underutilized buildings, vacant lots, cultural institutions, streets and other urban infrastructure — as collective, or shared, resources of urban communities. The assertion of a common stake or interest in resources shared with others is a way of resisting the privatization and/or commodification of these resources. We situate these claims within an emerging “urban commons? framework embraced by progressive reformers and scholars across multiple disciplines. The urban commons framework has the potential to provide a discourse, and set of tools, for the development of revitalized and inclusive cities. Yet, scholars have failed to fully develop the concept of the “urban commons,? limiting its utility to policymakers.

In this article, we offer a pluralistic account of the urban commons, including the idea of the city itself as a commons. We find that, as a descriptive matter, the characteristics of some shared urban resources mimic open-access, depletable resources that require a governance or management regime to protect them in a congested and rivalrous urban environment. For other kinds of resources in dispute, the language and framework of the commons operates as a normative claim to open up access of an otherwise closed or limited access good. This latter claim resonates with the social obligation norm in property law identified by progressive property scholars and reflected in some doctrines which recognize that private ownership rights must sometimes yield to the common good or community interest.

Ultimately, however, the urban commons framework is more than a legal tool to make proprietary claims on particular urban goods and resources. Rather, we argue that the utility of the commons framework is to raise the question of how best to manage, or govern, shared or common resources. The literature on the commons suggests alternatives beyond privatization of common resources or monopolistic public regulatory control over them. We propose that the collaborative and polycentric governance strategies already being employed to manage some natural and urban common resources can be scaled up to the city level to guide decisions about how city space and common goods are used, who has access to them, and how they are shared among a diverse population. We offer two evolving models of urban commons governance in cities around the world as examples of these strategies when scaled up to the city level: the sharing city and the co-city.

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Concludes that the Actavis Ruling Applies to Non-Cash Payments (Lamictal)" Free Download
e-Competitions Bulletin, No. 75208, August 2015

MICHAEL A. CARRIER, Rutgers University School of Law - Camden

In the area of drug patent settlements, the Third Circuit’s ruling in King Drug Co. of Florence v. Smithkline Beechham Corp. (Lamictal) is the most important federal decision since FTC v. Actavis. Since the Supreme Court’s ruling, district courts have split on whether “payment? applies beyond cash. Most courts have correctly found that it does. But the district courts in Lamictal and In re Loestrin 24 FE Antitrust Litigation found that it does not. This is a critical issue.

This article summarizes the Lamictal ruling. The court addressed the harm from settlements by which brand-name drug companies promise generics not to introduce their own version of generics (known as “authorized generics? or “AGs?). The court explained how no-AG promises could be as anticompetitive as cash payments, offer significant value to generics, and reveal brand sacrifices. It rejected arguments that such promises are exclusive licenses immune from antitrust scrutiny. And it overturned the lower court’s conclusion that the settlement at issue was reasonable, as it found that plaintiffs sufficiently pled an antitrust violation and that the rule-of-reason analysis was reserved for the factfinder.

The article concludes that the Lamictal opinion was consistent with the language of Actavis and the economics of the pharmaceutical industry and was a crucial decision that ensures a role for antitrust scrutiny of potentially anticompetitive drug patent settlements.

"Bryant Park as a Site of Production: Revenue and Social Control" Free Download
Oñati Socio-Legal Series, Forthcoming

EMILY KAUFMAN, University of Kentucky

English Abstract: Bryant Park is New York City's only 100% privately funded and managed 'public' park, making it an oft looked-to model of public-private partnerships. This paper examines the everyday workings of the park using ethnographic and archival data, and criminological and urban theory. These details help us understand how Bryant produces a theme-park-like social order in its built environment, landscaping, management, and programming of the park. I suggest that social control functions through five governing principles: visibility, classification, predictability, vulnerability, and empowerment. Everything is neatly classified, from people to activities to trash. Vulnerable design elements like flowers are chosen to suggest the park is cared for. Park-goers are meant to feel not controlled, but in-control; safe, comfortable, and empowered.

This elaborate manipulation of semiotics and space serves to produce surplus value for multiple corporate interests involved in and around the park. I argue that the park operates as a site of production of revenue for these corporate interests. I explain how the park is created and marketed as a product itself, which park-goers have an unwitting share in producing. Thus New York’s elite-business community benefits from this nominally public park.

Spanish Abstract: Bryant Park es el único parque “público? de la ciudad de Nueva York de financiación y gestión 100% privada, lo que lo convierte a menudo en un ejemplo de partenariados público-privados. Este artículo analiza el funcionamiento cotidiano del parque, utilizando datos etnográficos y de archivo, así como teoría criminológica y urbana. Estos detalles nos ayudan a comprender cómo Bryant produce un orden social dentro del parque en el entorno creado, paisajismo, gestión y programación del parque. Se sugiere que el control social funciona a través de cinco principios de gobierno: visibilidad, clasificación, predicción, vulnerabilidad y empoderamiento. Todo está cuidadosamente clasificado, tanto las personas como las actividades o los cubos de basura. Se eligen elementos de diseño vulnerables, como flores, para sugerir que se cuida el parque. Se pretende que los visitantes del parque no se sientan controlados, pero bajo control; seguros, cómodos y con poder.

Esta elaborada manipulación de semiótica y espacio sirve para producir un valor añadido para numerosos intereses corporativos que están involucrados en el parque. Se defiende que el parque funciona como un lugar de producción de ingresos para esos intereses empresariales. Se explica de qué forma se crea y comercializa el parque como un producto en sí mismo, en el que los visitantes del parque participan de forma involuntaria. De esta forma, la comunidad de negocios de élite de Nueva York se beneficia de este parque “público?, únicamente en su nombre.

"What is Legal and What is Not: Examining the Relationship between Place Marketing, Place Branding, and Legal Geography in Heterotopias" Free Download

EVGENIA KANELLOPOULOU, University of Salford
NIKOS FOIVOS NTOUNIS, Manchester Metropolitan University - Business School

In this paper, we examine place marketing, place branding, and its alternative approaches, under the prism of legal geography. We aim to provide an additional knot that ties law and space by examining the role that alternative place marketing practices play in understanding and interpreting the perception of what is legal.

"Property and Secrecy" Free Download

AMNON LEHAVI, Interdisciplinary Center Herzliyah - Radzyner School of Law

Real estate ownership is conventionally viewed as a clear matter of public record. Yet purchasers of real estate are increasingly employing legal techniques to preserve their anonymity by registering their properties through trustees or opaque shell companies. This turn of events calls for delineating the appropriate boundaries of secrecy in property.

The Article identifies primary contexts in which the issue of secrecy comes up in the law, including in financial and proprietary settings, such as secret trusts or undisclosed accumulation of shares in public corporations. It then underscores the unique features of secrecy in real estate. It offers an innovative analysis of the ways in which anonymous property holdings might generate externalities for various types of stakeholders, from central and local governments up to neighboring property owners in both their individual and collective capacities, such as in a homeowner association. The analysis establishes normative criteria for requiring property owners to disclose relevant details. It calls, however, to distinguish between a duty to provide information and the operative results of such disclosure in regard to interested parties’ capacity to act on such information.

This Article argues that, somewhat counter-intuitively, an elaborate discussion of the proper limits to the interest in secrecy would challenge prevailing forms of exclusion and other types of defensive or offensive tactics against “unwelcomed neighbors,? whenever such practices have no normative merit. The discourse on secret real estate holdings would therefore shed broader light on the underlying societal features of ownership.


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?

Editor: Robin Paul Malloy, Syracuse University


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.