Welcome to RECOLAND - an ERC funded project on Land-based institutions in China

About

“That what ultimately determines the performance of institutions is not their form in terms of formality, privatization, or security, but their spatially and temporally defined function. In different wording, institutional function presides over form; the former can be expressed by its credibility, that is, the perceived social support at a given time and space. This postulate has here been dubbed the “credibility thesis”. (Peter Ho in Land Use Policy, 2014, Vol. 40, Sept., pp. 13-4) ...

Urban land and real estate

“Titling is often seen as a precondition for economic growth and the rule of law. By contrast, Chinese real estate has gone through a substantive economic growth without a cadaster, i.e. in the absenc...

Rural land and informal housing

Societal reality often features the launch of strict prohibitions and ordinances in a demonstration of political will and ambition, subsequently leading to the establishment of “empty” institutions ...

Grassland and Mining

“The empty institution embodies certain rules not yet accepted in society, but in such a manner that the newly created institution is ineffective. They emerge as compromises over sensitive polit...

Forest and titling

In the reform of a forestry sector governed by centralist, socialist principles towards a sector suited to the challenges of the market economy, the Chinese government needs to establish institutions ...

Impressions from the triple session at the annual PLPR conference

Posted on 9th March 20177th April 2017 by Xiuyun Yang

Due to great interest of the session’s topic the PLPR organizers decided to allocate three slots for the session ‘Credibility of Informality’. This allowed for three inspiring sessions – chaired by Peter Ho, Rachelle Alterman and Benjamin Davy – with presentations on the related topics of planning, land and housing in a variety of contexts, including Israel, Serbia, China and Hong Kong. P...
Read More

Random Question

What sets credibility apart from trust?

“Credibility is different from actors’ “trust” in institutions that emphasizes the relationship between social actors, as for instance, Farrell and Knight, state in an interesting article: “If institutions may exert an independent effect on trustworthiness, and thus on how social actors trust or distrust each other, then it follows that the evolution of institutions may be expected to have an impact on trustworthiness, and thus on trust, and thus on cooperation among individuals (Farrell and Knight, 2003, p. 539).

Credibility, on the other hand, draws attention to the nature of institutions and property rights, and to how they are perceived. To understand that nature, one needs to go beyond form and assess the rules in use, what they represent, and what function they fulfill.” See Peter Ho, “The ‘Credibility Thesis’ and its Application to Property Rights: (In)secure Land Tenure and Social Welfare in China”, Land Use Policy, 2014, Vol. 40, September, pp. 16.

Top