Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Guest editorial: comparative research at the frontier of planning law The case of compensation rights for land use regulations

Guest editorial: comparative research at the frontier of planning law The case of compensation... Purpose – This paper aims to present the merits of cross‐national comparative research as a method for pushing the frontier of knowledge about planning laws. Since in every country there is usually some dissatisfaction with its present planning laws or certain aspects of them, cross‐national research can open an arena of alternatives based on real‐life experiences. To demonstrate this argument the paper focuses on a shared dilemma – how should the law handle the negative effects of some planning decisions on land values. This case is used to demonstrate both the comparative method and the usefulness of comparative findings. The conclusions point out the opportunities for cross‐learning. Design/methodology/approach – The overall argument about the comparative research draws on the author's extensive experience in conducting cross‐national research on a variety of issues in planning laws. The research on compensation rights reported here draws on the author's recent book which analyses the laws and practices in 13 countries. To ensure a “common platform” for comparison, the author developed a method based on a set of factual scenarios and a shared framework of topics. A team of country‐based researchers conducted the legal analysis, and the team leader conducted the comparative analysis. Findings – The 13‐country analysis shows that there is a great variety of approaches to compensation rights around the world and a broad range of degrees, from no compensation at all to extensive compensation rights. There is no “consensual approach”. The search for similarities based on region in the world, legal family, cultural background, density or demography, shows that the differences cannot be “explained” on the basis of these variables. The degree of political controversy on this issue also varies greatly. The breadth of laws and practices offer a range of alternative models to enrich local debates. Research limitations/implications – Any comparative research on a new topic is bound to be exploratory. There are not yet any established theories in planning law (or in comparative research) from which hypotheses can be derived and tested. However, the large sample of countries, covering 40 per cent of the OECD countries (at the time), and the careful shared method have likely produced reliable findings. Originality/value – Most of the comparative research that the author has conducted over the years charted new grounds in both its topics and its comparative breadth. The paper reports in brief on cross‐national comparative research on compensation rights. The full research, on which this paper draws (published as a book in 2010), is the first to look at this specific issue globally with a large 13‐country sample of OECD countries. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Law in the Built Environment Emerald Publishing

Guest editorial: comparative research at the frontier of planning law The case of compensation rights for land use regulations

Download PDF
13 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/guest-editorial-comparative-research-at-the-frontier-of-planning-law-uSz6SEcZx5
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.
ISSN
1756-1450
DOI
10.1108/17561451111148220
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to present the merits of cross‐national comparative research as a method for pushing the frontier of knowledge about planning laws. Since in every country there is usually some dissatisfaction with its present planning laws or certain aspects of them, cross‐national research can open an arena of alternatives based on real‐life experiences. To demonstrate this argument the paper focuses on a shared dilemma – how should the law handle the negative effects of some planning decisions on land values. This case is used to demonstrate both the comparative method and the usefulness of comparative findings. The conclusions point out the opportunities for cross‐learning. Design/methodology/approach – The overall argument about the comparative research draws on the author's extensive experience in conducting cross‐national research on a variety of issues in planning laws. The research on compensation rights reported here draws on the author's recent book which analyses the laws and practices in 13 countries. To ensure a “common platform” for comparison, the author developed a method based on a set of factual scenarios and a shared framework of topics. A team of country‐based researchers conducted the legal analysis, and the team leader conducted the comparative analysis. Findings – The 13‐country analysis shows that there is a great variety of approaches to compensation rights around the world and a broad range of degrees, from no compensation at all to extensive compensation rights. There is no “consensual approach”. The search for similarities based on region in the world, legal family, cultural background, density or demography, shows that the differences cannot be “explained” on the basis of these variables. The degree of political controversy on this issue also varies greatly. The breadth of laws and practices offer a range of alternative models to enrich local debates. Research limitations/implications – Any comparative research on a new topic is bound to be exploratory. There are not yet any established theories in planning law (or in comparative research) from which hypotheses can be derived and tested. However, the large sample of countries, covering 40 per cent of the OECD countries (at the time), and the careful shared method have likely produced reliable findings. Originality/value – Most of the comparative research that the author has conducted over the years charted new grounds in both its topics and its comparative breadth. The paper reports in brief on cross‐national comparative research on compensation rights. The full research, on which this paper draws (published as a book in 2010), is the first to look at this specific issue globally with a large 13‐country sample of OECD countries.

Journal

International Journal of Law in the Built Environment – Emerald Publishing

Published: Jul 12, 2011

Keywords: Planning law; Land use law; Property rights; Comparative legal research; Property values; Property law

References

  • The Global Debate Over Constitutional Property: Lessons for American Takings Jurisprudence
    Alexander, G.
  • Takings International: A Comparative Perspective on Land Use Regulations and Compensation Rights
    Alterman, R.
  • The social responsibility of ownership
    Dagan, H.
  • The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies
    European Commission
  • Comparative Legal Traditions: Text, Materials and Cases of Western Law American Casebook Series
    Glendon, M.A.; Carozza, P.G.; Picker, C.B.
  • Windfalls for Wipeouts: Land Value Recapture and Compensation
  • Land Use Planning and Development Regulation Law
    Juergensmeyer, J.C.; Roberts, T.E.
  • Bringing the Law Back in: Essays in Land, Law and Development
    McAuslan, P.
  • An introduction to institutional transplantation
    Mamadouh, V.; de Jong, M.; Lalenis, K.
  • Land Use Planning and Building Permission in the European Union
    Schmidt‐Eichstaedt, G.