Advertisement

“Hexagon” of Property

  • S. V. DomninaEmail author
  • S. U. Salynina
Chapter
Part of the Contributions to Economics book series (CE)

Abstract

The contribution presents the concept of the property in terms of philosophy, law, economics, sociology, politics, and economic psychology. A concept of “hexagon of property” has been developed taking into account all aspects of this complex category. The contribution considers the process when a person acquires a property object and its development taking into account various aspects of the property: philosophical; cognitive, legal, emotional, strong-willed, profitable, political (domineering) and social aspects. The life cycle of the property object is considered from the standpoint of economics, law, sociology, psychology, and politics. The emphasis is on the ownership from the perspective of economic psychology: components of ownership (cognitive, emotional and volitional) and their formation at different stages of the property development, as well as specific subject-object relations related to the notion of “commodity fetishism” are shown. With the help of statistical data, it is justified that property objects are the extension of personality, especially for intellectual property objects.

Keywords

Life cycle of property object Property rights Acquiring Property Property relations “Hexagon” of property 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The contribution is dedicated to the memory of the scientific adviser, Doctor of Economics, Professor of Samara State University of Economics Aleksey Ivanovich Minin. The authors of the contribution express their gratitude to the management of Samara State University of Economics and personally to the rector of the university, Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor G. R. Khasaev.

References

  1. Demsetz, H.: Toward a theory of property rights II: the competition between private and collective ownership. J. Legal Stud. 31, 653–656 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Demsetz, H.: In: Anderson, T.L., McChesney, F.S. (eds.) Ownership and the Externality Problem, pp. 282–300. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2003)Google Scholar
  3. Demsetz, H.: Frischmann’s view of “toward a theory of property right”. Rev. Law Econ. 4(1), 127–132 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Driffield, N., Mickiewicz, T., Temouri, Y.: Ownership control of foreign affiliates: a property rights theory perspective. J. World Bus. 51(6), 965–976 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Federal State Intellectual Property Service. Annual reports. Federal State Intellectual Property Service, Moscow (2016). https://www.rupto.ru/ru/about/reports. Accessed 20 Mar 2018
  6. Federal State Statistics Service. Science, innovation and information society. Federal State Statistics Service, Moscow (2016). http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statistics/science_and_innovations/science/#. Accessed 20 Mar 2018
  7. Hall, S.G., Ahmad, M.: Can trust explain social capital effect on property rights and growth? Proc. Econ. Financ. 7, 55–64 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ilie, L.: Intellectual property rights: an economic approach. Proc. Econ. Financ. 16, 548–562 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Karnyshev, A.D.: Property as a basic category of economic psychology (2002). http://ecsocman.hse.ru/data/2011/01/19/1214869266/2002.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2018
  10. Kelli, A., Värv, A., Mets, T., Mantrov, V., Birštonas, R., Ginter, C.: Different regulatory models of transfer of industrial property rights in the baltic states: a plea for harmonized approach. Int. Comp. Jurisprud. 2(1), 8–17 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lundberg, F.: The Rich and Super-Rich. The True Rulers of the United States of America. Progress, Moscow (1971)Google Scholar
  12. Mangialardo, A., Micelli, E.: Social capital and public policies for commons: bottom up processes in public real estate property. Valorization. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 223, 175–180 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marx, K.: The Capital, vol. 1 (1867). http://www.esperanto.mv.ru/Marksismo/Kapital1/index.html. Accessed 20 Mar 2018
  14. Mingaleva, Z., Mirskikh, I.: Psychological aspects of Intellectual property protection. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 190, 220–226 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Müller, D., Schmitz, P.W.: Transaction costs and the property rights approach to the theory of the firm. Eur. Econ. Rev. 87, 92–107 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Palahniuk, C.M.: Fight Club. AST, Moscow (2014)Google Scholar
  17. Raghavan, M., Jain, K., Jha, S.K.: Technology and intellectual property strategy of a firm: a view through the commons theory lens. IIMB Manag. Rev. 25(4), 213–227 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rakotonarivo, O.S., Jacobsen, J.B., Poudyal, M., Rasoamanana, A., Hockley, N.: Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications. Land Use Policy. 70, 71–83 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Raisberg, B.A., Lozovsky, L.S., Starodubtseva, E.B.: Modern economic dictionary. NFRA-M, Moscow (2007)Google Scholar
  20. Sikor, T., He, J., Lestrelin, G.: Property rights regimes and natural resources: a conceptual analysis revisited. World Dev. 93, 337–349 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sukarmijan, S.-S., Sapong, O.: The importance of intellectual property for SMEs; challenges and moving forward. UMK Proc. 1, 74–81 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tarando, E.E.: Theory of ownership in economic sociology. Soc. Environ. Dev. 4, 69–73 (2012)Google Scholar
  23. Tarando, E.E.: Sociology of property: from K. Marx’s ideas to the St. Petersburg school of economic sociology. Sociology 11(1), 20–31 (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Samara State University of Economics, Samara State University of CultureSamaraRussia
  2. 2.Samara State Institute of CultureSamaraRussia

Personalised recommendations