Apartment ownership: the English version needs reforming

In this contribution, the English commonhold system, which enables the development of freehold units in a multi-unit development, is critically re-visited. Provision is made for the development of freehold apartments on land with a registered commonhold title. At the date of registration, a management body for the scheme, the commonhold association, must be in place. Each purchaser of a unit in the relevant building obtains freehold property on purchase. The property and management of the building housing the units and of the common areas of the scheme are, by contrast, withheld from unit holders and vested in the commonhold association, which is a special kind of body corporate. Since the coming into force of the English legislation, a set of defects have been detected. This contribution re-assesses the main problem areas and makes a number of reform suggestions drawing on material from a number of jurisdictions, notably South Africa, France and Germany. Avoidable problems are likely to arise with any conversions to commonhold from the predominant English long lease system, owing to the narrowness of the conversion rules. The manner in which ownership of units and the common parts are regulated, a key aspect in any such system, merits re-assessment. It seems that here the English rules survive comparison. The rules pertaining to constitution of the commonhold association fail to provide sufficient safeguards for unpaid scheme creditors. The rules relating leasing of commonhold units seem inadequately thought out. There is a conspicuous absence of real remedies for non-payment of assessments by unit holders. The effect of these and other aspects may help to explain why commonhold has had a limited numerical impact. The time for a second generation reforming statute may have come.

Home, meaning and identity: learning from the English model of shared ownership

This article explores the problematic nature of the label “home ownership” through a case study of the English model of shared ownership, one of the methods used by the UK government to make home ownership affordable. Adopting a legal and socio-legal analysis, the article considers whether shared ownership is capable of fulfilling the aspirations households have for home ownership. To do so, the article considers the financial and nonfinancial meanings attached to home ownership and suggests that the core expectation lies in ownership of the value. The article demonstrates that the rights and responsibilities of shared owners are different in many respects from those of traditional home owners, including their rights as regards ownership of the value. By examining home ownership through the lens of shared ownership the article draws out lessons of broader significance to housing studies. In particular, it is argued that shared ownership shows the limitations of two dichotomies commonly used in housing discourse: that between private and social housing; and the classification of tenure between owner-occupiers and renters. The article concludes that a much more nuanced way of referring to home ownership is required, and that there is a need for a change of expectations amongst consumers as to what sharing ownership means.

Low cost home ownership: legal issues of the shared ownership lease

Analysis of the decision in Richardson v Midland Heart Ltd (formally Focus Homes Options) [2008] L&TR 31

A model intervenes: the many faces of moral hazard

This article builds on advances in social ontology to develop a new understanding of how mainstream economic modelling affects reality. We propose a new framework for analysing and describing how models intervene in the social sphere. This framework allows us to identify and articulate three key epistemic features of models as interventions: specificity, portability and formal precision. The second part of the article uses our framework to demonstrate how specificity, portability and formal precision explain the use of moral hazard models in a variety of different policy contexts, including worker compensation schemes, bank regulation and the euro-sovereign debt crisis.

Expecting moral philosophers to be reliable

Are philosophers’ intuitions more reliable than philosophical novices’? Are we entitled to assume the superiority of philosophers’ intuitions just as we assume that experts in other domains have more reliable intuitions than novices? Ryberg raises some doubts and his arguments promise to undermine the expertise defence of intuition-use in philosophy once and for all. In this paper, I raise a number of objections to these arguments. I argue that philosophers receive sufficient feedback about the quality of their intuitions and that philosophers’ experience in philosophy plausibly affects their intuitions. Consequently, the type of argument Ryberg offers fails to undermine the expertise defence of intuition-use in philosophy.

Unpacking the mechanism by which psychological ownership manifests at the level of the individual: a dynamic model of identity and self

Increasing prominence of the psychological ownership (PO) construct in management studies raises questions about how PO manifests at the level of the individual. In this article, we unpack the mechanism by which individuals use PO to express aspects of their identity and explore how PO manifestations can display congruence as well as incongruence between layers of self. As a conceptual foundation, we develop a dynamic model of individual identity that differentiates between four layers of self, namely, the “core self,” “learned self,” “lived self,” and “perceived self.” We then bring identity and PO literatures together to suggest a framework of PO manifestation and expression viewed through the lens of the four presented layers of self. In exploring our framework, we develop a number of propositions that lay the foundation for future empirical and conceptual work and discuss implications for theory and practice.

Local ownership and UN peacebuilding: discourse versus operationalization

The UN asserts that local ownership boosts the legitimacy and sustainabil- ity of peacebuilding by preserving the principles of self-determination and nonimposition in an activity that can contravene them. At the same time, it also perceives local ownership to imperil the achievement of its operational goals, thus bringing its normative and operational obligations into conflict. This article evaluates the UN’s discourse and operationalization of local ownership, showing that despite the UN’s invocation of ownership dis- course, it operationalizes ownership in restrictive ways that are intended to protect the achievement of operational goals but that consequently limit self-determination and increase imposition. Moreover, because of contra- dictions in the UN’s practices of ownership, it also undercuts its ability to re- alize the very operational goals that it is trying to protect. KEYWORDS: UN peacebuilding, local ownership, discourse vs. practice.