A property rights analysis of administration, land tenure and land use in Canterbury, New Zealand, 1850 to 1880
Citations
Altmetric:
Authors
Date
1986
Type
Thesis
Fields of Research
Abstract
This document describes the application of a property rights analysis to the land use history of colonial Canterbury in New Zealand. Understanding of Canterbury history from 1850 to 1880 is reviewed and it is found that past approaches do not adequately explain the patterns and processes evident in Canterbury settlement history. The period 1850 to 1880 features important changes in both administrations and land uses. Three stages of political administration are identified and these stages of administrative re-organisation are associated with changes in social attitudes and changes in property rights assignments. The basic property rights structure in Canterbury from 1850 to 1880 is described and the dynamics of property rights are identified. The property rights analysis identifies administrations identified within and the numerous land uses. Allocation linkages between these linkages are of property rights assignments in land and within utility maximization processes. Furthermore, components of property rights theory such as resource scarcity, opportunity costs, transaction costs, opportunity set, and incentive structure, are identified in Canterbury land history and discovered to be important explanatory concepts of socio-economic history and human behaviour. In addition, property rights theory indicates that it may be useful as a tool for resource management and policy formulation because of its capacity to reveal insights into the problems of policy co-ordination, and by helping predict response to policy change.
Permalink
Source DOI
Rights
https://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/pages/rights
Creative Commons Rights
Access Rights
Digital thesis can be viewed by current staff and students of Lincoln University only. If you are the author of this item, please contact us if you wish to discuss making the full text publicly available.