World-Wide Sharing of Rent
as the Foundation for Peace
T. Nicolaus Tideman
[A paper presented at a Conference of the
International Union for
Land Value Taxation and Free Trade, London, March, 1991]
I. Introduction
The world needs a new foundation for peace. The practice of seeking
to preserve an evolving status quo that is established by force is
bound to yield recurring wars. The status quo is too tainted by its
origins in violence to serve as a basis for lasting peace. We need a
new understanding of the rightful basis for claims to territory and
legitimacy. Seeking to undo historical injustices one by one is not
practical. The solution is to develop a world order in which claims of
nations to territory and legitimacy emerge from an understanding of
human equality.
Section II of this paper explains why we can expect wars if we
continue to rely on the ways of the past. Section III argues that
justice among nations requires an acceptance of equality in per capita
claims to the undeveloped rental value of land. Section IV discusses
some of the issues that arise in efforts to measure undeveloped rental
value. Section V describes a clearing-house mechanism that could be
used to compensate for differences in the per-capita territory and
resource claims of nations. Section VI discusses the manner in which
causes of wars would be removed, or at least reduced, by acceptance of
a principle of equal per capita sharing of rent. Section VII discusses
the need to complement equal sharing of rent with some means by which
dissatisfied groups can start new nations, either by secession or by
settling otherwise unsettled territory. Section VIII discusses the
benefits of equal sharing of territory in promoting democracy.
II. Our Propensity for War and Efforts to Prevent it
Wars seem to have been part of human experience since before the dawn
of history. In fact, it is possible to give war a biological
foundation. Darwin said that fighting among males of a species serves
to give control of territory and desired females to the strongest
males.[1] Lorenz said that the most important biological function of
aggression is to spread the members of a species over all of the
territory that can support them.[2] But the fact that a trait such as
aggression has biological foundations does not mean that we must
reconcile ourselves to its expression. Consider the matter of
population. Natural selection would generally predispose individuals
to having the greatest possible number of children. But both because
we have other personal goals and because we have constructed societies
that give us a different orientation, humans generally do not strive
to have as many children as possible. We can similarly aspire to
develop personally and socially into beings that transcend the
biological impulses that lead to war. But we have a long way to go.
We seem to have been trapped by evolution, at least temporarily, in a
mode in which societies are dominated by persons with unlimited
appetites for power and wealth. In satisfying these appetites, leaders
draw nations into wars of immense cost. In the war over Kuwait that
has just been concluded, if estimates in the news are to be believed,
as many as 100,000 persons may have been killed in six weeks. Between
the wages paid, the materials of war and the resources destroyed, this
war probably cost more than $150 billion. But this is just the most
visible sign of a malady that pervades the world. The war between Iran
and Iraq may have cost a million lives. Civil wars have plagued
Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, Liberia, Sri Lanka, and other nations for
years. In other places, such as Israeli occupied Palestine and the
Baltic Republics, unrest seethes below the point of war only because
the power of imposed rule makes full-scale war ill-advised.
In earlier times it was not uncommon for the side that won a war to
kill every man, woman and child of the losing side. As a strategy for
avoiding the resumption of conflict, such a practice has a certain
coherence. But most of the human race has developed to a degree that
this is no longer acceptable. We must deal with one another.
It should not be surprising that we experience so much war when one
examines the ways that we seek to establish peace. Peace has
connotations of consensus and harmony. But in practice peace is all
too often a set of conditions imposed by the victors on those who are
defeated in war, with little or no concern for the wills of the
defeated. When this occurs it is understandable that peace should last
only until the defeated side can regain enough strength to resume the
conflict.
Our efforts to achieve peace by dealing with one another are made
more difficult by the fact that it is through demonstrations of
violence that aggrieved parties establish that others must contend
with them. It was principally through violence that colonial powers
were persuaded to grant freedom to their dependencies. It was through
violence that Jewish groups persuaded Britain to leave Palestine, and,
similarly, that the PLO has come to be seen as the authoritative voice
of Palestinians' aspirations for political rights. While it may be
understandable that the nations of the world are not prepared to
negotiate with just anyone, it is also true that as long as
dissatisfaction persists and repression is incomplete, groups that
want to be dealt with seek inclusion by demonstrating their capacity
for violence.
To discourage violence by those who wish to have their claims
considered, efforts are often made to establish a principle that "no
concessions will be made to terrorists." But it is generally not
possible to maintain such a commitment in the face of escalating
violence combined with a lurking suspicion that those who advance the
claims might have justice on their side. With violence thus rewarded,
however reluctantly, it should not be surprising that violence
persists.
There is, in theory, a possibility of maintaining peace by having the
weaker yield to the stronger. When the armies of Chinese war lords
confronted each other, it was common for the generals of the two
armies to sit down to tea and discuss the expectable consequences of
the impending battle. They would talk about the sizes of their forces,
their recent successes, their battle-readiness, and any other relevant
factors. They would seek to reach a common understanding of what the
outcome of the battle would be. And if they were able to reach such a
common understanding, the general of the army that was predicted to
lose would lead his forces away, without a battle.[3]
In the confrontation between Iraq and the nations allied against it,
a similar effort to reach a common understanding could be seen. Saddam
Hussein conceded that his army would suffer many more casualties than
the forces that opposed him. However, he seemed to believe that the
casualties would not be as asymmetric as they turned out to be, and
that, based on events in Vietnam and Beirut, the Americans would not
be willing to tolerate the level of casualties that his forces would
be able to inflict. Saddam Hussein's miscalculation illustrates a cost
of relying on negotiations based on force. There can be no guarantee
that potential combatants will reach a consensus on the consequences
of conflict, and their failure to do so can be exceedingly costly.
Another theme in efforts to maintain peace is the use of "trigger
strategies." A trigger strategy is an announced plan to respond,
to any encroachment by others upon one's territory, with measures
whose costs to oneself are so great as to make the response appear
irrational, despite the costs imposed on one's adversaries. The U.S.
plan to defend Western Europe by responding to a Soviet invasion with
nuclear weapons is an example of a trigger strategy. Trigger
strategies are attractive because, if others are convinced that a
nation will act in a stated way, then it will be rational for them to
respect the line that the nation has drawn. And if a nation does not
employ a trigger strategy, then it may be vulnerable to an adversary
who nibbles away at its territory without ever taking enough in one
action to provoke retaliation. However, it is inherently difficult to
make the threat of a trigger strategy believable because it is not
rational to carry out the threat when the provocation has already
occurred. In these circumstances it is very easy for miscalculation to
lead to violence.
Between the unresolved injustices that are preserved in the status
quo, the propensity for taking seriously only those who have
demonstrated capacity for violence, and the widespread use of trigger
strategies, it is surprising that we do not have even more war.
III. Basing Territorial Claims on Human Equality
Any improvement in prospects for world peace must begin by rejecting
the traditional approach that involves simply freezing claims to
territory in the status quo. The status quo incorporates too much past
injustice. When injustices of the past pertain to the borders of
nations, a freezing of the status quo means a permanent deprivation of
some peoples. While it is possible to imagine an effort to examine the
past and undo its injustices one by one, such an effort is made
virtually impossible by the manner in which history becomes
increasingly murky with the passage of time. While the injustice of
the incorporation of the Baltic republics into the Soviet Union is
reasonably well established, it is likely to be much harder to
establish what is required, by a principle of undoing injustices, for
the much older conflict between Protestants and Catholics in Northern
Ireland.
With the status quo incorporating too much injustice and the fading
historical record making it impossible to achieve justice by the
sequential correction of past injustices, the most promising avenue
toward a just and lasting peace is one that operates on a principle of
equality. A principle of equality with respect to territory means that
no person can reasonably claim more territory than every other person
can claim. When applied to nations, the principle of equal claims
means that the claim of each nation is proportional to its population.
But what is the practical meaning of equal claims to territory? It
cannot mean that humans have claims to equal areas of land, because
land in one place differs in value so much from land in another. This
concern contains the seed of its answer.
It may be agreed first that if all land were equal in value, then
people would have claims to equal areas of land, and nations would
have claims in proportion to their populations. Thus the claim is to
equal shares of value.
Some of the value of land comes not from its natural characteristics,
but rather from a combination of economic growth and public services.
The component of value arising from these sources should be regarded
as belonging exclusively to the community that grew and provided the
services. If land values are higher in Singapore than in Djakarta,
this is much more a factor in what the societies that developed these
two cities have done with the land on which they live than of
differences in the natural characteristics of the land with which they
started. Thus the resource on which equal claims can be made is the
unimproved value of land, understood as value in the absence of any
economic development.
One must next deal with whether claims should be for the ownership of
land in perpetuity, or for the use of land. It is exceedingly
difficult to create a system of equality in ownership claims. Because
generations arrive sequentially, it would be necessary to set aside
land to be assigned to future generations as they arrived. It is much
more straightforward to establish a system of equality in claims to
the use of land. Thus each person has an equal claim on the rental
value of land while he or she is alive, and each nation has a claim to
an amount of land that gives it a share of rent equal to its share of
population.
Some of the rent of land arrives in the form of royalties for
extracted natural resources. For this component of rent,
intergenerational equity is more complex, since use by one generation
precludes use by others. It is not sensible to divide a resource such
as oil equally among all persons who will ever live, because a much
greater revenue can be received by using most of the oil in earlier
years, and then investing the proceeds. Thus for depletable natural
resources, a sensible application of the principle of equality is to
plan for equal annual monetary payments for all persons in all
generations, and then to strive to allocate the resource over time in
such a way as to yield the greatest possible annual per capita
payment. Taking account of the depletable natural resources that go
with some territory, the following principle of territorial claims
emerges:
A nation's claim to territory is consistent with the
equal claims of others if the fraction of the world's undeveloped
rental value that the nation claims is no greater than the fraction
of the world's population that the nation comprises, and the per
capita annual appropriation of revenue from depletable natural
resources that the nation assigns to itself is no greater than the
annual revenue that can be assigned to every person in every
generation. An excessive claim is made respectable if the nation
compensates those who have less than average shares.
The remainder of this paper seeks to establish that this is a
coherent and workable basis for settling territorial disagreements
among nations.
IV. Measuring the Magnitudes of Claims
The first question that might be asked is, "How would one
measure 'the fraction of the world's unimproved rental value' that a
nation was claiming?" Because we have not thought of asking this
question before, our ability to answer it is not well developed. But
some principles that might be applied are straightforward. First, in
circumstances such as the U.S.-Canada border where land is
economically equivalent on the two sides of an international boundary,
the undeveloped rental value of land is the same on the two sides of
the boundary. Second, when cities and towns occur in agricultural
regions, the land under the cities and towns has the same value as the
surrounding agricultural land. Cities and towns on rivers are an
exception, but the land under cities at undistinguished points on
rivers (Paris, Warsaw and Moscow might be examples) has the same
undeveloped rental value as land at other undistinguished points on
rivers.
Land under cities where navigable rivers join, such as Pittsburgh and
St. Louis, must be assigned a higher undeveloped rental value because
of the special advantages of locating cities in such places. It is
hard to know precisely how much more, but there should be principles
that would apply internationally.
Other places of special value are harbors and sites such as London
that are at the navigable limits of major rivers. Again, international
standards for the value of such places would be needed.
In addition to land, it would be necessary to place value on both
renewable and non-renewable natural resources that are scarce. Among
the most significant renewable resources is water. This resource is
depleted both by drawing down the level of underground water and by
extractions from rivers. Part of the value of natural resources that a
nation appropriates for itself is the reduction in the value of future
opportunities for using land over underground water reserves and in
the value of current opportunities for using land downstream from
rivers. Where rivers are polluted, the costs that are borne in other
countries would have to be counted as well.
It is important to distinguish water that is scarce from water that
is not. A nation that draws fresh water that would otherwise flow into
the ocean does not deprive others by its action. It might be charged
for the special value of land with such access to water, but it should
not be charged in proportion to the water it uses. In the same way, a
nation that obtained water by desalinization of sea water would not be
charged for that activity. Fish in the ocean constitute another scarce
renewable resource. Nations that fish should include, as part of the
resources they appropriate, the cost in reduced opportunities for
others that result from their fishing.
Most non-renewable resources are scarce, so equality requires that
the value of the opportunity to extract them be shared. There are
exceptions, however. Salt is extremely important for life, but not at
all scarce, in oceans at least. Thus nations should not be charged for
any salt they extract from the sea. It is possible that mineral
nodules at the bottoms of the oceans are also not scarce. If this is
true, then the citizens of any nation should be allowed to remove
these nodules freely, without any charges to their nations' claims on
resources. A possible concern with respect to a world of equal per
capita claims to territory and resources is that nations might try to
increase their rates of population growth, in order to achieve control
over greater shares of the world's territory and resources. The first
comment that should be made about this potential concern is that one
cannot be confident that the problem will materialize. Population
growth rates are generally lower in richer countries. It is possible
that greater equality in access to land and resources will disincline
individuals toward larger families.
But it is also possible that the problem of unsustainable population
growth rates will persist. If it does, then that means that having
children-appropriating parenting opportunities if you will-is an
activity, like extracting resources, that diminishes opportunities for
others. Then nations should be charged for their growing populations.
The appropriate charge for extra growth would be the amount of money
that would be needed to compensate every other nation for the reduced
territory that they could claim. An appropriate charge would eliminate
any gain to a nation from having a population that grew at a rate
higher than the rates of other nations.
V. Compensation for Variations in Per Capita Claims
It would be a remarkable coincidence if a nation's use of territory
and natural resources were exactly equal to its share. Thus some
provision must be made to compensate for deviations from the target of
equality in the per capita claims of nations to resources and
undeveloped rental value. The natural mechanism is a clearing house. A
nation with appropriations in excess of the norm would make payments
into the clearing house, and the clearing house would make payments to
nations whose appropriations were less than the per capita norm.
One indication of an intuitive recognition that some such institution
is needed is found in the calls that are heard for the oil-rich Arab
countries to share-at least with their resource-poor Arab
neighbors-the wealth that flows into their hands.
VI. How Acceptance of Territorial Equality Removes Causes of Wars
Consider how acceptance of a principle of equality would remove the
causes of many wars. It seems unlikely that Iraq would have thought it
worthwhile to invade Kuwait if success had not meant obtaining oil
worth hundreds of billions of dollars. A significant incentive for
Argentina's invasion of the Falklands islands was the possibility of
using a claim to the islands as the basis for a claim to the value of
the fishing rights surrounding the islands. An important part of
Japan's aggressive militarism prior to World War II was a feeling that
it could not compete adequately with other industrialized nations
unless it expanded its access to natural resources.
The immediate objective in almost all wars is the control of
territory and associated resources. If additional territory and
resources carried with them additional responsibilities for payments
to a clearing house, then acquiring a greater share of the world's
limited territory and resources would not be an avenue toward
increased per capita incomes for a nation.
VII. The Need for Exit Options
The removal of causes of war requires that territorial equality be
complemented by a second principle, namely that people who do not
approve of governments under which they live must have the chance to
provide or choose different governments for themselves, even if they
are a minority. One of the ways that, it is now agreed, people may do
this is by migrating to any country more to their liking that will
have them. That people are allowed to do so is a very valuable and
important principle. If the claims of nations on a clearing house
increased with the number of immigrants they accepted, then it should
be expected that nations would accept more immigrants. Also, the
clearing house account would give nations that lost citizens a
financial reason to make themselves more acceptable to would-be
emigrants.
As important as these considerations are, the right to emigrate and
take one's clearing house claim does not do enough for dissatisfied
citizens. First, sometimes other countries do not wish to accept
immigrants. Second, it is possible that those who are dissatisfied
with their governments will not like any of the existing governments
that will accept them. To eliminate the possibility of unjust
oppression of minorities by majorities, dissatisfied minorities must
have either an opportunity to secede or an opportunity to set up new
governments in otherwise unsettled territory.
Both of these possibilities entail complications. A nation can justly
resist many secessionist movements on the ground that secession would
interfere with connectedness needed for efficient commerce, or would
place outside the jurisdiction of the nation individuals who benefit
from public services that it provides. On the other hand, if secession
is costly for one group it is likely to be costly for the other, and
acknowledging a right of secession may be a useful way to ensure that
majorities dp not oppress minorities. History alone is not a
sufficient reason to shackle peoples together indefinitely.
If secession is accepted in principle, there would have to be
standards that secessionist groups were obliged to meet. A group that
wished to secede would have to constitute significantly more than a
majority-at least two-thirds, and perhaps 75 or 80% of the residents
in a contiguous, reasonably compact region. They would have to be
willing to compensate those from whom they were separating for any
public investments they acquired. The secession would have to occur
without interference with trade of those left behind. But it is
conceivable that such standards could be developed and could sometimes
be met.
The alternative to secession is to permit dissatisfied persons to
establish new nations in otherwise unsettled territory. This requires
that there be attractive, unsettled territory on a recurring basis,
which may seem either improbable or inefficient. But for the same
reason that a well-run office building does not have an occupancy rate
of exactly 100%, a well-run world would not have a 100% occupancy rate
for regions attractive for settlement. A price mechanism could be used
to achieve the desired vacancy rate. A "target vacancy rate"
would be set by international agreement, and whenever the actual
vacancy rate was less than the target, rent on all land would rise
until the target was met. The higher rent would not actually
impoverish the world, because it would be paid back to nations in
proportion to their populations, but it would motivate nations to
identify regions that they were prepared to vacate for new groups.
In any event, groups that are dissatisfied ought to have the
opportunity to establish new nations of their choice, either by
secession or by settling otherwise unsettled areas.
VIII. The Value of Territorial Equality and Exit Options in
Promoting
Democracy and Reducing Civil Strife. One important advantage
of an exit option is that it overcomes obstacles to democracy in
existing institutions. Current news accounts report that the only
persons who are allowed to vote in Kuwait are men whose forbearers
lived in there in 1920. There is a coherent rationale to such a rule
in a world that does not recognize equal claims to territory and
resources. Kuwait is rich from oil that happens to be found under its
territory. It is rich enough to hire many workers from elsewhere to
perform valuable tasks. But if these persons are allowed to vote, they
can be expected to insist on a government that gives the population as
a whole a greater share of oil revenues. And if that should happen,
more people will come to Kuwait just so that they too can share in the
oil wealth. A democratic government in Kuwait can be expected to enact
strict immigration controls so that the persons who are already there
will not have to share the oil wealth with newcomers.
The rejection of democratic rights for people who moved to Kuwait
after oil was discovered there, or the artificial restriction on
immigration that can be expected if all residents are allowed to vote,
are both avoided if oil wealth is, in effect, shared on a world-wide
basis. It is then not necessary to restrict people's democratic or
immigration opportunities out of concern that these opportunities will
be used by them to acquire more of the oil wealth for themselves.
So much political struggle and civil strife is concerned with who
will be able to dominate whom. We can go a long way toward eliminating
these domains of struggle and strife if we can come to a shared,
world-wide understanding that every nation's claim to territory and
resources (or compensation) is proportional to the number of persons
who freely choose to be citizens of that nation.
Footnotes
- Mentioned without citation by
Konrad Lorenz in On Aggression, New York:
Harcourt(1966)p.27.
- Ibid., p. 35.
- My source for this is
conversations with Gordon Tullock, who became an oriental expert
in the course of his career in the Foreign Service.
|