Property rights and rural justice: A study of US right-to-farm laws

被引:9
作者
Ashwood, Loka [1 ]
Diamond, Danielle [2 ]
Walker, Fiona [3 ]
机构
[1] Auburn Univ, Dept Agr Econ & Rural Sociol, 310 Corner Hall, Auburn, AL 36849 USA
[2] Northern Illinois Univ, Dept Anthropol, Coll Liberal Arts & Sci, De Kalb, IL 60115 USA
[3] Auburn Univ, Auburn, AL 36849 USA
基金
美国农业部;
关键词
Family farm; Property rights; Land ownership; Agricultural law; LAND; COMMUNITY; LANDOWNERSHIP; AGRICULTURE; ECONOMY; STATE;
D O I
10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.02.025
中图分类号
P9 [自然地理学]; K9 [地理];
学科分类号
0705 ; 070501 ;
摘要
Are property rights merely a tool of the market economy, disempowering those with the least in rural places and further lining the pockets of those with the most? Most rural scholarship, on the aggregate, argues that yes, property rights dispossess the many in favor of the few. We, though, ford the situation to be much more nuanced in our analysis of U.S. right-to-farm laws, the first of its kind. An overlooked dimension of property rights the capacity to claim trespass on property through nuisance enables rural people to defend their rights to clean air and water and the use and enjoyment of their property in the face of large-scale, industrial agricultural operators. Our analysis of statutes in all 50 U.S. states finds that right-to-farm laws, while largely purported to defend family farmers, reduce rural people's capacity to protect their land through nuisance actions in defense of their environmental, health, and community rights. We argue that property rights, when properly protected from nuisance, can help rural people push back against the market economy in defense of their health and environmental rights when other political means falter. Recognizing as much helps reveal a relationship between property rights and justice that currently is overlooked by rural scholars.
引用
收藏
页码:120 / 129
页数:10
相关论文
共 73 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2008, 20.9 CFR Title 42 PART 494 - Conditions For Coverage For End -Stage Renal Disease Facilities Subpart D 494.140(a)
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2005, FED REG
[3]  
[Anonymous], URBAN AGR MEETS MICH
[4]   Where's the Farmer? Limiting Liability in Midwestern Industrial Hog Production [J].
Ashwood, Loka ;
Diamond, Danielle ;
Thu, Kendall .
RURAL SOCIOLOGY, 2014, 79 (01) :2-27
[5]  
Ashwood Loka., 2018, FOR PROFIT DEMOCRACY
[6]   Love of the land: Social-ecological connectivity of rural landholders [J].
Baldwin, Claudia ;
Smith, Tanzi ;
Jacobson, Chris .
JOURNAL OF RURAL STUDIES, 2017, 51 :37-52
[7]   Standards and corporate reconstruction in the Michigan dry bean industry [J].
Bingen J. ;
Siyengo A. .
Agriculture and Human Values, 2002, 19 (4) :311-323
[8]  
Birchfield Vicki, 2011, REV INT POLIT ECON, V6, P27
[9]   Economies, ethics and emotions: Farmer distress within the moral economy of agribusiness [J].
Bryant, Lia ;
Garnham, Bridget .
JOURNAL OF RURAL STUDIES, 2014, 34 :304-312
[10]   Thirty years of farmland preservation in North America: Discourses and ideologies of a movement [J].
Bunce, M .
JOURNAL OF RURAL STUDIES, 1998, 14 (02) :233-247