Plural Values of Land: An Empirical Investigation

Abstract

The political economy of our time asserts that value equates to monetary price. This tendency to equate value in terms of monetary price continues in case of the value of land. An understanding of plural values of land encourages us to look beyond monetary price. The article considers two land acquisition cases in India, as a source of empirical data to demonstrate the existence of plural value of land and limitations of monetary price–based valuation theory.

Keywords

Plural values of land valuation monetary price paradox of value

Introduction

At the surface, the world is experienced and described with different words. We often use a single word to indicate a diverse experience or to convey a range of meanings.¹ By doing so, we ascribe and convey different values. The value of land follows the same trends. Often, our life experience shapes our perceptions and how we value things. The world view of a lawyer who deals with land issues is often shaped by the ‘bundle of sticks’ that he or she deals within the court of law. (Alexander, 1982; Alterman, 2010; Klick & Parchomovsky, 2017). A typical refugee’s understanding of land, a homeless² person’s valuation of an empty corner or an Auschwitz concentration camp survivor’s valuation of Auschwitz’s land differs from a farmer who grows grains in nearby areas. The proximity, experience and relationship with the land contribute to shaping how we value land.

There are proximal observers(s), and others have a direct relationship with the land. When we appreciate the Sognsvann lake in Oslo or Maasai Mara in Tanzania, we did not influence those conditions, but we were rather influenced by the experience. A proximal observer’s valuation of these lands is influenced by such experiences. Alternatively, there are individuals with a direct and everyday relationship with the land as an agency (Dey Biswas, 2020a, p. 12). These direct relationships are established with those who use the land to meet certain functions in their everyday life. Experience of life gives meaning and values to things, including, but not restricted to, land. These feelings are not universal; each individual may not feel in the same way. Moreover, even when it is felt in the same way, the strength may differ. Our life experience over time influences how we value or do not value certain things in life (Anderson, 1993/1995; Davy, 2012; Dey Biswas, 2020a).

Often, social science literature is so much puzzled with cultural diversity that it forgets about the common genetic design of human species. As a member of the species, individuals, irrespective of culture, language and regional differences, are governed by common internal design and innate principles (Chomsky, 1969, 2007; Mikhail, 2011). In this article, we are not going to understand the innateness of the value and valuation process but rather use the empirical data from India as an example to argue for the merits of ‘plural’ universality in valuation. This universality of value plurality, at some level, has been attempted to be theorised by Davy (2012). Albeit independently but simultaneously, there has been a resurgence of developing an understanding of values of land beyond monetary price. Scholars have looked from an ecological value of land (Sander et al., 2016), planning laws (Evans, 2004)—planning, law and property rights (Davy, 2012, 2014), and international expropriation laws (Alterman, 2010), negotiation and power (Dey Biswas, 2020a; Wang et al., 2020); and philosophy and economics (Anderson, 1993/1995; Sandel, 2009, 2012). Others went towards the neoclassical quantitative direction with analytical non-linear models and descriptive theorisation (Gluszak & Zygmunt, 2018; Han et al., 2020; Ma et al., 2020). The tendency to equate value in terms of monetary price continues to linger on (Christensen, 2014; Glumac et al., 2019; Hansjürgens et al., 2016; Rodas et al., 2020). Against this background, this article attempts to empirically test the understanding of plural values and demonstrate that land has values beyond monetary price.

Table 1.

Composition of Participants: Individual Interviews

Sl. No	Category	Male	Female	Total
1	Sample size	30	30	60
2	Salbani	15	15	30
3	Singur	15	15	30
4	SC (Scheduled Caste)	10	10	20
5	ST (Scheduled Tribe)	4	4	8
6	Subject to expropriation	15	15	30
7	Stakeholders	15	15	30
8	Representative of industry	3	2	5
9	Political representatives	5	5	10
10	Public servants	5	5	10
11	Civil society	2	3	5

Source: Author's construction.

The article has considered two land acquisition cases in India—Salbani and Singur—located in the state of West Bengal for an empirical investigation. These two contrasting case studies, one successful land acquisition (Salbani)³ and another failed (Singur),⁴ will contribute in a theoretical generalisation but not for the comparative purpose (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Yin, 1984, pp. 44, 21). In the first instance, a politicised, organised and violent protest in Singur, West Bengal, India, evicted the Indian multinational conglomerate TATA from newly built car factory on state-acquired land. The phenomena triggered a political movement, which defeated the Communist Party-led democratically elected coalition government in the next provincial election (in West Bengal, India), after 34 years in power (Nielsen, 2018). The contrasting case is the land acquisition case at Salbani, West Bengal, India. There, a part of OP Jindal Group (a.k.a. JSW) was given a typical ‘fallow’ land of 4,860 acres to build an iron and steel factory (Mathur, 2013, p. 162). As recently as in 2019, the JSW project has not faced noticeable opposition from the locals who are directly or indirectly affected by this land acquisition. The data collection involved 7 months of ethnographic observation, 60 qualitative in-depth interviews (1–2 h long) and 6 focus group discussions (FGDs) (see Table 1 for further details). The participants for the qualitative in-depth interviews were identified via rapport-building with community resource persons and via snowball sampling. The participants of the study maintained parity in terms of age, sex and association with the expropriated land. The transcribed data ran over 1,200 pages.

The article is divided into four parts. After the introduction, the second section deals with the theoretical underpinnings, the third section provides the empirical evidence, whereas the last section discusses the conclusion of the article.

Plural Value of Land

Values are extrinsic in nature because they are socially constructed. Davy’s understanding of plural values is a product of his broader theory of polyrationality (Davy, 2012). The theory of plural values (as this study proposes) does not give importance to one kind of ‘value’ over others. It rejects the ranking of values or ranking against some theories of justice. For example, association with Mozart does not make a piece of music more valuable than the music of Eminem. The plural land values can be summarised as commodity (or exchange value), territory (or territorial value), capability (or use value), and ecological or existential value of land. It does not mean that a plot of land has value as a commodity (only) or has ecological values or any of the four conceptualisations. These conceptualisations only assist us to summarise plural values of land. With or without awareness of human society, the ‘market’ adds up and absorbs all the information of values into one figure, that is, in terms of a monetary price (Davy, 2012, p. 91). As a result, the contemporary economic theories and valuation practices project values in terms of monetary price—both use value and exchange. The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP, 2016, p. 10), The Blue Book by the European Group of Valuers’ Association (TEGoVA, 2016, p. 17), the German market value definition under Section 194 BauGB (Davy, 2012, p. 94), Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (2008, p. 17) and Indian state(s) (DRSR, 2018; GOI, 2009) all indicate the value of land in terms of monetary price (Davy, 2012, p. 94). In real estate terms, only 1 per cent has a market price because they are traded. The rest of the properties have assigned or non-assigned values because no hypothetical or actual transaction is taking place. Even with this logic, 99 per cent of the real estate hypothetical values are measured/realised in terms of monetary price.

The paradox of value has stimulated many curious minds before. In the context of valuation of land, according to Davy, the paradox asks ‘…why we think that the land would sell at this price?’ (Davy, 2012, p. 91). Davy answered this question via grid-box of the commodity (or exchange value), capability (or use value), territory (or territorial value) and environmental (or ecological) values of land (Davy, 2012, pp. 25–26, 91–95). Land values reflect social perception towards a certain piece of land. Individual and collective spatial choices transmute the plural meaning of land into plural land-use practices. The ‘market’ processes—all visible and invisible rules, experience, formal–informal social practices—information or plural values to indicate this complex information into a single monetary price in Euro, Dollar, Pound or INR.

The concept of the value of land as commodity or exchange value follows neoclassical economics. It follows a typical economic formula to find the equilibrium function of demand and supply. Bargaining is stacked between a well-versed eager buyer and a well-informed eager seller via extensive negotiation (Davy, 2012, p. 96). Theories of the exchange value of land represented in terms of monetary price include comparison method, depreciated replacement cost method and many others (Davy, 2012, p. 96; Evans, 2004; Isaac & O’Leary, 2002; O’Flaherty 2005). The professional valuation literature follows (more or less) three to five principal methods of valuation (RICS, 2012; Shapiro et al., 2012, pp. 12–15). They all, at some point or other, accept that valuation can be scientifically represented in terms of monetary price.

The idea of the use value of land or value of land as capability is a progeny of utilitarianism and the capabilities approach. The value of land as capability is the total utility of land, including its current and potential/hypothetical future use (Davy, 2012, p. 102). It is because ‘…land possesses a wide variety of capabilities to satisfy human needs’ (p. 103). The use value of land is a function of the quality of land (often the fertility), public or private services and facilities essential for everyday life, quality of environment (social, cultural and environmental) and accessibility to land. Therefore, the use values are also influenced by externalities and by its use. The use value produces social capital such as the local networks, recognition in society, trust, relationship and dependence with the surrounding ecology, and livelihood opportunities (p. 103).

Davy has an arguably ambivalent feeling towards monetary price–based valuation. In contrast, he argues that the plural values are already included in the market price and, on the other hand, ‘…we cannot determine the well-being of individuals by examining the money-value of their income and wealth’ (Davy, 2012, p. 110). Nussbaum’s (2006, p. 78) Item 10 reduced this ambivalence. The value of land as capability also explains (the popular)⁵ Smith’s (1776/1982, pp. 44–45) paradox of value, as the paradox of value applied to land responds to the social constructions of land (Davy, 2012, p. 113).

The territorial values are more than use value and exchange values, and social construction of land values. One of the foundations of the territorial value of land is the right to exclude others from the fruits of the land (Davy, 2012, pp. 114–117). Territorial value also varies based on the degree of commodification of the land. The codified law like the constitution of a country and union (such as European Union) legislations passed by the parliament or customary law like indigenous law protected by the constitution in various parts of the world (like the 5th & 6th schedule of Indian Constitution) dictate what rights are allowed to be commodified. The rights vary greatly across the legal regimes; therefore, ‘continuum of land rights’ (Davy, 2012, p. 120; UN-Habitat & GLTN, 2008, p. 8) makes absolute exclusion not too rigid. Territorial values also influenced by the political economy, geographical planning, sociology, environmental demand of the time (for instance, in the age of Anthropocene), power and control (Davy, 2012, pp. 120, 124).

Existential values of land are a recognition of environmental values of land. The existence value of the environment is the shared property of the human (Davy, 2012, p. 136) as well as other species of the planet. The existence value of land to human society is a (human) social construction (Davy, 2012, p. 135). A bird or tiger would perhaps find the existential values of land differently than a human being. These (commodity, territory, capability, and ecological) monorational values constitute the plural value of land.

Before engaging with the empirical evidence, the linguistic difference between singular or unitary value and plural values should be acknowledged:

There are really two problems here: distinguishing between the terms that refer to groups and the terms that refer to individuals (a merely linguistic problem) and defending the view that there really is a candidate for a unitary value (a metaphysical problem). The linguistic problem comes about because in natural language we may use a singular term as ‘shorthand’: conceptual analysis may reveal that surface grammar does not reflect the real nature of the concept. For example, we use the term ‘well-being’ as if it refers to one single thing, but it is not hard to see that it may not. ‘Well-being’ (for example ecological values of land) may be a term that we use to refer to a group of things such as pleasure, health, a sense of achievement and so on. A theory that tells us that well-being is the only value may only be nominally monist. The metaphysical question is more difficult, and concerns whether there are any genuinely unitary values at all. (Mason, 2018; additions in the bracket with italics)

The metaphysical question is another puzzle. In this school, the idea of goodness is a unitary property and not a natural property. It is rather difficult to empirically test goodness rather considered an intuitive faculty. The question often debated is what makes an individual/thing’s value an individual value or intrinsic value, whereas another value is understood because of association or extrinsic value (Mason, 2018). In light of Davy’s conception of plural values of land, since values are a social construction, they are extrinsic in nature, whereas the existential values of land bases its understanding of intrinsic values of land. Does our conclusion change if we are looking at a problem at a micro or the core (level) or from a distance? The differentiation between intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives remain inconclusive.

Empirical Evidence

In this section, I discuss the empirical evidence collected in Salbani and Singur land acquisition areas, in India. The methodology recognises that individuals may or may not use technical terms used by Davy to explain plural values of land. A thematic analysis of qualitative empirical data collected from 60 in-depth interviews and FGDs were conducted. The coding of the themes was peer-reviewed to check subjective biases. The analysis indicated that the participants of the study more easily discussed land values as commodity and capabilities. The participants of the study found it difficult to explain territory and ecological values of land.

Value of Land as Commodity or Exchange Values of Land

Values are often mistakenly equated in terms of monetary price. Some years ago, the Czech government considered raising taxes on cigarettes. To fend off the tax increase, Philip Morris commissioned a study;

…study found that the government actually gains more money than it loses from smoking. The reason: although smokers impose higher medical costs on the budget while they are alive, they die early, and so save the government considerable sums in health care, pensions, and housing for the elderly…the net gain to the treasury is $147 million per year…Faced with public outrage and ridicule, the chief executive of Philip Morris apologized, saying the study showed ‘a complete and unacceptable disregard of basic human values’. (Sandel, 2009, pp. 41–42)

Yet, in a wide variety of ways, land value is realised in terms of monetary price by individuals and groups. On the surface, the bigger the economic return via produced crops/business opportunities, the value of land as commodity or the exchange value of land is considered higher. One of the real estate valuation methods—the revenue capitalisation method—is based on the same logic (Davy, 2012, p. 100).

Agricultural returns from the land increase or decrease the land value. The economic return from land contributes to achieving meaningful social actions, and it also offers social security. It is theoretically and empirically established that the social security earned from land contributes to meeting the central capabilities of life (Nussbaum, 2006; Sen, 2005; consecutive Human Development Reports). Marginalists like von Wieser acknowledged the value of certain things in old age or, in other words, future functions/wants (von Wieser, 1889/1893, pp. 16, 18). Therefore, quite often, the value of land is more than an economic return. Mr Basudev, a resident of Salbani, discussed the question of value and economic return from the land:

Interviewer: ‘Previously you said that land which gives crops 4 times a year is of the high price that is almost 4 times than the single cropland. But do you think that the earning of such highly fertile land is equivalent to the price of the land?’

Mr Basudev: ‘Maybe not so… Farmers do not earn that much but you have to understand that the land is a permanent asset so you cannot judge the value of land-based on the income from crops’.

The empirical data suggest that the value of land as a commodity can be realised via economic exchange (bought/sold) and social security earned via different use of land. Along with simplistic economic return, social security is realised via a formal and informal mortgage. In the absence of broad state-supported or private social security mechanisms, the land is a reliable source of social security.⁶ Applied to land acquisition cases considering socio-economic circumstance (von Wieser’s concern for old age), monetary compensation should try to imagine the monetary exchange value of the land, in a hypothetical 20 or 40 years in future.

According to the participants of the study, these days, cultivating on land can lead up to a monetary loss. At the same time, few others claimed that ‘always losing’ hypothesis is not so true. Considering the global and Indian political–economic scenario, the cost of agricultural commodities has witnessed less inflationary pressure, whereas the price of other commodities has increased (Anderson, 2010; Mitra & Sarkar, 2003). In India’s case, the situation is somewhat sustained by the minimum support price (to the farmers against their produce) provided by the state for agricultural commodities (Bodh, 2019). Instead of adequate return from cultivation, the farming communities rely on other social assistance provided in the rural communities.

According to the participants of the study, ‘the land has value as a commodity during market transactions’ is often distorted by speculative buying and selling. Interested individuals, usually with non-farm backgrounds are quite active in such transactions. Rapid peri-urbanisation and development of real estate activities have influenced the exchange value of land. Often, in exchange of land, the owner(s) or right holders receive apartments for their own use and more apartments for whatever use right holders deem fit. This practice is not new but a kind of benefit-sharing (Cernea, 2008, pp. 102–107). Speculators also include local wealthy parties. They learn about the future potential of a parcel of land via political connections. The insider political decisions over the planning of future projects offer an edge in making much earlier land deals and opportunities to speculate. These speculative investments in land to meet future social security needs are efficient means to hide untaxed income.⁷ The land registration rights and deeds practices are inefficient; therefore, loopholes are used by interested parties to hide their true income, true owner’s information and monetary price/value/exchange conditions of transactions.

The above exchange indicates how the existing political economy and growing of certain income group are increasing the value of land as a commodity represented in monetary price. The monetary price of land is now more than what median earning of the population can afford to pay (for the metropolitan area, please see Clarke Annez et al., 2010). A just monetary valuation during land acquisition, or in absence of willing and well-informed buyers and sellers, may well be the value of the land in 20 or 40 years from the day of transaction. Again, we find von Wieser’s concern for old age or social security over time (von Wieser, 1889/1893, pp. 16, 18). The participants of the study, who are primarily agriculturalist argued that the existing economic convictions, do not consider the exchange value of land as an expenditure/investment when land is used for the purpose of cultivation. When the same investment takes place for other manufacturing purposes, the exchange value of land is considered as an expenditure.

The participants of this empirical research indicated that the value of land as a commodity guarantees a kind of social security, via mortgages and monetary income. Considering the contemporary agricultural market, when the monetary profits are uncertain, the returns from land (viz. agricultural commodities) provide at least something to live on, while being supported by another source of income. The income earned from the use of land, that is, value as commodity, meets the social requirements of life. Hence, the overlying area between the value of land as commodity and capability is somewhat visible. The value of land as a commodity demands the recognition of the future value of land in the years to come. Whether or not existing political economy would like to accept or reciprocate remains to be seen (Dey Biswas, 2020a, 2020b).

Value of Land as Territory or Territorial Values of Land

Excluding others from the fruits of the object in question is one of the ultimate characteristics of private property and one of the foundations of the territorial value of land (Davy, 2012, pp. 114–117; Klick & Parchomovsky 2017; Merrill, 1998; Yang, 2018). A minority group of scholars argues that the right to exclude is to be sine qua non (Alexander & Peñalver, 2012), whereas, in others, it is not so (Davy, 2014). Among many aspects of territorial values of land, the participants of the study were not particularly rigid about excluding others. The practice of absolute exclusion is not so absolute. The exclusion is enforced to exclude others from the fruits of the land, namely the crops or any other commodities produced/kept on the parcel of land. The leftover empty physical space has many common, recreational and shared use.⁸ The limits of inclusion and exclusion can be sensed by Mr Sougata, a resident of Singur:

Interviewer: ‘Not everyone can own cows. I understand that but I have another question with empty land. Suppose, you have a piece of land not being farmed, can I go there and take some soil/earth from it?’

Mr Sougata: ‘Yes, if it is a little bit of soil, of course, you can take it. If someone is taking a chhorra (one large plate) of soil it does not matter. If someone wants to take soil worth of one labour and ask ‘will you allow me?’ I will say ‘Yes’. Then I can also show the person at which area within the plot soil can be taken’.

Interviewer: ‘How much money I have to pay you?’

Mr Sougata: ‘That is up you to decide how much you want to pay me. I won’t be paying you for your labourer but you pay to take the soil. For the soil, you really won’t be paying me’.

Interviewer: ‘I took soil from you so should not I pay you?’

Mr Sougata: ‘No. I need to make my land a little bit plain. You took the soil, which made my land what I wanted’.

Interviewer: ‘Do I need to take your permission to take 2-pound soil for example?’

Mr Sougata: ‘No, you don’t need to. Some young people sometimes take some soil from us which is quite regular. In the case of Sona land, the same thing happens. When I watering my land and the land is not plain it is problematic whereas if you are taking soil from my uneven land by following my advice, you are helping me to level my land. It is just great! The water will now standstill during the paddy season’.

There are customary and informal land-use practices, which establish invisible boundaries (Yang, 2018). The invisible boundaries are established by the informal practices that include or accept a certain group of activities, whereas punishes/discourages others. It is the informal social boundaries that protect the crops from grazing animals, rubbishes to be thrown on the plot, and walls are not erected on the agricultural field or homestead land to enable physical access to land located far away from any road. Unlike the urban practices, an earthen ridge or a tress or bushes indicates the boundary of land (similar to cabin rights or corn rights; De Soto 2000, pp. 120–121). Any severe violation of such informal social boundaries is dealt via informal social gatherings, which often act like draconian extra-legal courts (often described in media reports as Salishi/Khap Panchayat; Dhar, 2014). Such informal social courts are notorious for passing draconian and often medieval laws, which violate the Constitution of India, national and state laws, and human rights laws enshrined at the United Nations. On the other hand, the same informal courts pass egalitarian ‘not so restricted/ not so exclusionary’ land use. There is a reciprocity principle in property and obligations towards others (Alexander & Peñalver, 2012; Paine, 1797; Pellissery & Lødemel, 2020). Such practices fall between the Hardin’s (1968) tragedy and Rose’s (1986) comedy while managing resource and social relationships.

Value of Land as Capability or Use Values of Land

The participants of the study are of the view that land provides the opportunities for acceptable minimum and somewhat sustainable means of livelihood; it is a source of food, empowers to meet social duties, a source of dignity and acts as a fall-back mechanism when planning for the future. Ms Karabi, a resident of the Singur area, here, describes the use value of land as:

What we have received from land? When my grandfather used to farm, he used to do it alone. His son...means my father had sons and daughter and I had sons and daughters. We have raised our children, organised their marriage from farming only. We have done everything with the help of the land. Till today, everything was going on in the same way. This was done by sharing crops (or sharecropping) with the original owner of the land. Through farming, we did many things in life. When the land was taken away, it was a disaster for us. After a lot of struggle, we have managed to handle the situation.

The land provides a decent means of livelihood across generations. As it is a reliable ‘troubleshooter’ or private social security, the direct and everyday association with the land motivates individuals to value the non-financial value of land more than whatever monetary income is earned from the activities on land. Ms Piyali, a resident of Singur, described this as follows:

Those who are devoted to land will never give up their land. They are ‘420 sons’⁹, they will not even think twice about selling their land. He will think, it is something that my father has done, so why care. We will never sell our land. ¹⁰

Ms Shatabdi, a resident of the Singur area, described how land ensures, no matter what, ‘enough to live on’:

From land- mainly food we have received. Other than the food, the paddy I produce, perhaps 40-80 kg of rice is needed for me, then 12-15 sacks of rice I keep for myself. Then the remaining 30 sacks of rice I could sell. From that money other everyday things can be bought, small expenses and some clothes. The same with the potatoes production...When there is rice at home, many things can be ignored. Nowadays, different vegetables are produced. Those are giving us a little bit of money to meet other expenses.

The amount of money that the use of land can generate depends on the inherent capital and modern farming/non-farming ideas of the investor/farmer. The wealth matters since those with higher investments are in a better position to use inputs and factors of production compared to those who are at the lower threshold of investment. The farmer’s suicides are a significant problem in India and many other parts of the Global South and Global North (Behere & Bhise, 2009; Kaushal, 2015). In such contexts, access to credit/capital has significant implication on how the individuals with new land-use ideas can use the land. The use of land and, therefore, the use value of land changes considerably with the change of investment with more and more capital available and knowledge of how to use the capital and land in synergy. The knowledge also becomes the key to a different use of land. As the majority of the farmers are either illiterate or semi-literate, the outcome from the use of land differs with more advanced knowledge about emerging activities on land.

The advanced economies have dealt with unpredictability of profitability in agriculture with subsidies (Anderson, 2010, p. 3011). The almost universal social security and (private/public) insurance take care of the rest of the social risks. In India, where all these risk mitigation measures are not in place, the future generations of agricultural communities will face challenges. The value of land as capabilities can be significantly influenced by extra-legal forces (for local land Mafia, Sud, 2014). Mr Sujan, a resident of the Salboni area, while recalling state’s activities for TATA’s car factory noted: ‘Because no one has the power to take land by force. They thought they will take it by force. They thought that they will beat up with sticks and built walls quickly, they can take land away from us’. The entry-level land record officer explained that without local musclemen’s blessings if one is not a local citizen, no one can buy a plot. Although one can buy legally, the person can never adversely possess the land. For the local individual, the means to deal with such local land sharks are through either payment of commission or social network.

Ecological or Existential Values of Land

The empirical evidence indicated the environmental apathy of the participants of the study. The ecological or existential values of land were not spontaneously raised by the participants. Nevertheless, the environmental concerns were treated as second priority to the immediate survival needs, such as food, clothing, shelter, employment, education and vocational training. Our obligation to the environmental values of land reflected less on the participants of the study. The group discussion held in Singur on 27 April 2017 has indicated the everyday understanding of ecological values of land:

Mr Amit: ‘During their life struggle people are not thinking about such issues. First is to meeting livelihood requirements, feeding family, taking care of other needs, and the environment comes later. If something happens, (it) will happen later’.

Ms Malabika: ‘But, we should protect our environments otherwise the future will be gloom’.

Interviewer: ‘That is something we must do’.

Mr Amit: ‘It is more like…we should live well by any means. Whatever comes later will come later. For example, when we bought a piece of land in our family, we wanted to create a garden because we wanted to have shades, this is for the environment. But our prime importance is meeting livelihood requirements. We need a good education for our children, we need good health clinics in nearby areas’.

As a result of the ever-growing population in India and higher demand for new housing, public infrastructure and industrialisation, more green areas will be erased in the near future.¹¹ The green areas include farmland and other types of vegetation like forests and swamps. Mr Amit, a resident of Singur, describes the consequence of these erasing of greens:

The population is increasing drastically, as a result in future, not only in future but the situation has become such, after the work, nature cannot be protected in the manner it needs to be. Since habitation is growing so much and more and more land is needed for housing, the trees are cut down. As a result, the natural balance is disturbed.

Emerging new factories often degrade the nearby environment. The state should perform their duties and obligations to protect the environment and punish those who harm the environment. In these cases, the state should fulfil their clean environment obligations. The emerging trend of extensive land-use changes for infrastructure has reduced the ecological values of land. On the contrary, the exchange value of land represented in terms of monetary price (as discussed earlier) has increased substantially. The tipping point, according to the participants of the study, is that ecological concerns are going to hurt the exchange value of land. In hindsight, the age of Anthropocene¹² has challenged the ecological values of land.

Plural Values

Plural values being a conceptual understanding of theories of value, not many participants of the study could consciously reflect upon the plural values of land. Among the few is Mr Bidhu, a resident of the Singur area, who described plural values quite vividly:

Land means, you can farm on the land and you can build a factory. Land can be used in various ways...Money is not everything. Land, on the other hand, is important for many reasons. Someone is feeding himself through agricultural activities, and those coming from other areas are looking for roadside land so that they can start a business. Others are thinking about building houses and later sell them or rent them.

Mr Sourav, a resident of the Salboni area, indicated complexities in understanding how human decisions are made:

Human being is rational, and they have to analyse their activity. There are multiple tasks in our life which are not rational. We are mostly considerate to the well-being of our life. There are again many factors which define wellbeing...It was just an example. The priority of human changes and those priorities of human decide their wellbeing. And the land value of a place also changes from place to place depending upon multiple factors. Yes, many aspects are considered but among all human tries to optimize. There are certain parameters which are not even difficult to articulate.

Individuals perceive the value of land differently. The farmers value their land in terms of how many crops it can produce, brokers look for potentialities on market speculation and factory owners look for production and transport potential. These different ways to perceive the value of land intuitively indicate the existence of plural values.

Conclusion

The strength of the theory of the plural values, if this has the potential to be called a theory, is its ability to summarise all existing means of valuation. Plural values of land are not merely an ideological understanding of values, but the empirical evidence can capture this value plurality. During the pre-Newtonian era, participants of any study could have hardly accepted that the gravitation works in the way we think now it works. Similarly, only a few participants of this study have even managed to indicate the plural values of land by articulating the commodity, territory, capability and ecological values of land. This realisation is somewhat influenced by the proximity to the land, whether the participants are proximal observers or have a direct relationship with land. It does not mean that plural value theory explains itself completely. While the theory does not tell us why even though the Central Park in New York has enormous exchange value (if we consider the potential real estate use of the large piece of land in central New York), the existential values of the land ‘was’ and still ‘is’ considered more valuable (than the exchange value of land). The reason and the process are unknown, and we do not know why in certain situations ecological values become more than as commodity and vice versa. Nevertheless, society has kept central park for its enormous ecological value and not another real-estate conclave to milk its exchange value.

The limitation of equating value in terms of monetary price is intriguing. The evidence suggests that plural values are constructed by human society,¹³ or they are a social construction or extrinsic in nature. This is more so because we, as human beings, are constructing/attributing these values on things to perform certain functions in society. This perhaps explains why very few participants have appreciated the ecological or existential values of land and territorial value of land. The ecological values are less appreciated because the immediate dire needs of life might have blocked the long-term consequence of such valuation. The empirical evidence on the territorial values of land has indicated the strength of this concept as well as the limitation of overemphasis of ‘exclusion’ characteristic of the property.

This empirical investigation suggests that perhaps the territorial value of land is less of a concern as long as the existing social arrangements perform their functions. The territorial values of land is not absolute but rather provide evidence for the continuum of land rights hypothesis. On the issue of the ‘exclusion’ property of land, the empirical evidence shows a space between the competing theories on tragedy and comedy of commons. The ecological values of land exist because the land has some human use and therefore value. The participants of the study were not particularly informed about the broader climate scenario. This perhaps represents the attitudes of people towards the environmental value of land in the age of Anthropocene. This empirical investigation is the first small step to understand plural values of land. It suggests that land has values beyond monetary price; therefore, excessive reliance on monetary price valuation is perhaps not the accurate reflection of social realities.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I want to thank the anonymous reviewer and the editor for their constructive feedback. Also, I want to acknowledge fruitful discussions on the core themes of the article with Benjamin Davy, and Thomas Hartmann, along with Franziska Seilker, Ivar Lødemel, M. Mercedes Stickler, Michael Kolocek, Paramita Roy, Rachelle Alterman, Sudipa Sarkar, and Satyendra Nath Mishra. I thank Sony Pellissery for his support in producing this paper. Roshan Thomas, and Sattwati Dey Biswas have kindly copy edited this article. All remaining errors are mine.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Alexander

G. S.

(1982). The concept of property in private and constitutional law: The ideology of the scientific turn in legal analysis. Cornell Law Faculty Publications , 82, 1545–1599.

Alexander

G. S.

Penalver

E. M.

(2012). An introduction to property theory (Cambridge introductions to philosophy and law). Cambridge University Press.

Alterman

R. (Ed.)

(2010). Takings international: A comparative perspective on land use regulations and compensation rights (1st ed.). American Bar Association Section of State and Local Government Law.

Anderson

(1993/1995). Value in ethics economics (2nd print ed.). Harvard University Press.

Anderson

(2010). Globalization’s effects on world agricultural trade, 1960–2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences , 365(1554), 3007–3021.

Awokuse

T. O.

Duke

J. M.

(2006). The causal structure of land price determinants. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d’agroeconomie , 54, 227–245.

Behere

Bhise

(2009). Farmers’ suicide: Across culture. Indian Journal of Psychiatry , 51, 242–243. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.58286

Bodh

P. C.

(2019). Farmers’ suicides in India: A policy malignancy . Taylor & Francis.

Cernea

M. M.

(2008). Compensation and benefit sharing: Why resettlement policies and practices must be reformed. Water Science and Engineering , 1, 89–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1674-2370(15)30021-1

10.

Chomsky

(1969). Aspects of the theory of syntax . The MIT Press.

11.

Chomsky

(2007). Approaching UG from below. In Gärtner

H.-M.

Sauerland

(Eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics . Studies in Generative Grammar. Mouton de Gruyter.

12.

Christensen

F. K.

(2014). Understanding value changes in the urban development process and the impact of municipal planning. Land Use Policy , 36, 113–121.

13.

Clarke

A. P.

Bertaud

Patel

Phatak

V. K.

(2010). Working with the market: A new approach to reducing urban slums in India (Policy Research Working Paper Series). World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-5475

14.

Davy

(2012). Land policy: Planning and the spatial consequences of property . Ashgate.

15.

Davy

(2014). Polyrational property: Rules for the many uses of land. International Journal of the Commons , 8(2), 472–492. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.455

16.

De Soto

(2000). The mystery of capital . Blackswan.

17.

Dey Biswas

(2020a). Land acquisition and compensation in India: Mysteries of valuation . Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29481-6

18.

Dey Biswas

(2020b). Social citizenship and plural values of land: Land acquisition cases from India. Social Policy and Society , 19(2), 331–342. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746419000496

19.

Dhar

(2014). West Bengal woman says gang-raped on orders of panchayat . https://in.reuters.com/article/rape-panchayat-west-bengal-love/west-bengal-woman-says-gang-raped-on-orders-of-panchayat-idINDEEA0M0AA20140123

20.

Directorate of Registration and Stamp Revenue (DRSR) (West Bengal). (2018). Market value of land . http://wbregistration.gov.in

21.

Evans

A. W.

(1983). The determination of the price of land. Urban Studies , 20, 119–129.

22.

Evans

A. W.

(2004). Economics and land use planning . https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1002/9780470690895

23.

Financial Times . (2014). The age of Anthropocene: Masters of the earth . https://www.ft.com/content/23eecd76-7fb2-11e4-adff-00144feabdc0. Accessed 4 Sept 2018

24.

Flyvbjerg

(2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry , 12(2), 219–245.

25.

Glumac

Herrera

Licheron

(2019). A hedonic urban land price index. Land Use Policy , 81, 802–812.

26.

Gluszak

Zygmunt

(2018). Development density, administrative decisions, and land values: An empirical investigation. Land Use Policy , 70, 153–161.

27.

Government of India (GOI). (2009). Guidelines for valuation of immovable properties 2009 (Technical Report). Ministry of Finance. https://cpwd.gov.in/Publication/GuidelinesProperties2009.pdf

28.

Han

Zhang

Zheng

(2020). Land use regulation and urban land value: Evidence from China. Land Use Policy , 92, 104432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104432

29.

Hansjürgens

Schröter-Schlaack

Berghöfer

Lienhoop

(2016). Justifying social values of nature: Economic reasoning beyond self-interested preferences. Ecosystem Services , 22(B), 228–237.

30.

Hardin

(1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science , 162(3859), 1243–1248.

31.

Isaac

O’Leary

(2012). Property valuation principles . Macmillan International Higher Education.

32.

Kaushal

(2015). Confronting farmer suicides in India. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political , 40, 46–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375415581258

33.

Klick

Parchomovsky

(2017). The value of the right to exclude: An empirical assessment. http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1637/

34.

Kolocek

(2017). The human right to housing in the face of land policy and social citizenship . Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53489-3

35.

Cheng

J. C.

Jiang

Chen

Zhang

(2020). Analyzing driving factors of land values in urban scale based on big data and non-linear machine learning techniques. Land Use Policy , 94, 104537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104537

36.

Mason

(2018). Value pluralism. In Zalta

E. N.

(Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2018 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/value-pluralism/

37.

Mathur

H. M.

(2013). Displacement and resettlement in India: The human cost of development (Routledge contemporary South Asia series, vol. 69). Routledge.

38.

Merrill

T. W.

(1998). Property and the right to exclude. Nebraska Law Review , 77, 730–755.

39.

Mikhail

(2011). Elements of moral cognition: Rawls’ linguistic analogy and the cognitive science of moral and legal judgment . Cambridge University Press.

40.

Mitra

Sarkar

(2003). Relative profitability from production and trade: A study of selected potato markets in West Bengal. Economic and Political Weekly , 38, 4694–4699. https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/4414224

41.

Nielsen

K. B.

(2018). Land dispossession and everyday politics in rural eastern India . Anthem Press.

42.

Nussbaum

M. C.

(2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. The Tanner lectures on human values . Belknap Press.

43.

O’Flaherty

(2005). City economics . Paperbackshop.

44.

Paine

(1797). Agrarian justice (Oxford scholarship). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199928903.003.0003

45.

Pellissery

Lødemel

(2020). Property and social citizenship: Social policy beyond the North. Social Policy and Society , 19(2), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746419000575

46.

Rodas

J. M. C.

Castanho

R. A.

Fernández

J. C.

Gómez

J. M. N.

(2020). Sustainable valuation of land for development. Adding value with urban planning progress. A Spanish case study. Land Use Policy , 92, 104456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104456

47.

Rose

C. M.

(1986). The comedy of the commons: Commerce, custom, and inherently public property (Faculty Scholarship Series, Paper 1828). https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1828/

48.

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). (2008). Valuation standards. Technical representative. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

49.

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). (2012). RICS valuation—Professional standards (Global en.). Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. ISBN: 978-184219-781-3.

50.

Saha

Bandopadhyay

Kumar

Mitra

(2020). Multi-approach synergic investigation between land surface temperature and land-use land-cover. Journal of Earth System Science , 129, 74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-020-1342-z

51.

Sandel

(2009). Justice: What is the right thing to do? Penguin Books.

52.

Sandel

M. J.

(2012). What money can’t buy: The moral limits of markets . Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

53.

Sander

Dendoncker

Martín-López

Barton

D. N.

Gomez-Baggethun

Boeraeve

McGrath

F. L.

Vierikko

Geneletti

Sevecke

K. J.

Pipart

Primmer

Mederly

Schmidt

Aragão

Baral

Bark

R. H.

Briceno

Brogna

… Washbourn

C. L.

(2016). A new valuation school: Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosystem Services , 22(B), 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.007

54.

Sen

(2005). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development , 6, 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880500120491

55.

Shapiro

Mackmin

Davies

(2012). Modern methods of valuation (11th ed.). Estates Gazette.

56.

Smith

(1763/1896). Lectures on justice, police, revenue arms . University of Glasgow (reported by a student in 1763 and edited with an introduction and notes, by Edwin Cannan, Clarendon Press). http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2621

57.

Smith

(1776/1982). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations . Liberty Classics.

58.

Sud

(2014). The men in the middle: A missing dimension in global land deals. The Journal of Peasant Studies , 41(4), 593–612.

59.

The European Group of Valuers’ Associations (TEGoVA). (2016). European valuation standards 2016. TEGoVA. https://www.tegova.org

60.

The Outdoor Recreational Act. (2018). Act of 28 June 1957 No. 16 (Norwegian Law). https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/outdoor-recreation-act/id172932/ or https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1957-06-28-16

61.

The Right to Public Access. (2019). This is the right of public access (Swedish Law). http://www.swedishepa.se/Environmental-objectives-and-cooperation/Swedish-environmental-work/Work-areas/This-is-the-Right-of-Public-Access/

62.

The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). (2016). Uniform appraisal standards for federal land acquisitions 2016. The Appraisal Foundation.

63.

UN Habitat, & GLTN. (2008). Secure land rights for all . UN-Habitat.

64.

von Wieser

(1889/1893). Natural value . In Smart

(Ed). Macmillan. http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1685

65.

Wang

van Noorloos

Spit

(2020). Stakeholder power relations in land value capture: Comparing public (China) and private (U.S.) dominant regimes. Land Use Policy , 91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104357

66.

Yang

(2018). Land use and social rights: A boundary perspective on the urban village in contemporary China . Bodenpolitik, Bodenmanagement und kommunales Vermessungswesen. School of Spatial Planning. TU Dortmund University. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.17877/DE290R-19138

67.

Yin

R. K.

(1984). Case study research: Design and methods . SAGE Publications.