Academic literature on the topic 'Land policy; Colonial state; Property rights'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Land policy; Colonial state; Property rights.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Journal articles on the topic "Land policy; Colonial state; Property rights"
1
Usarov, Umidjon. "THE CONDITION OF LAND AND WATER RELATIONS IN THE SIRDARYA REGION IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE XIX - THE BEGINNING OF THE XX CENTURIES." JOURNAL OF LOOK TO THE PAST 4, no. 3 (April 30, 2020): 60–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.26739/2181-9599-2020-4-7.
Full textAbstract:
This article analyzes the features of land-water relations in the agrarian policy of the Russian Empire in the second half of the XIX and early XX centuries in the Turkestan region, in particular, in the Syr Darya region. This explains the influence of the policy of the imperial government on the creation of the province, changes in land ownership rights and property relations after the establishment of colonial domination in the country, including the declaration of all lands as state property and the adaptation of these relations to imperial interests
2
Rutz, Henry J. "Capitalizing on Culture: Moral Ironies in Urban Fiji." Comparative Studies in Society and History 29, no. 3 (July 1987): 533–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0010417500014717.
Full textAbstract:
To an historian or anthropologist familiar with land problems in Fiji, nothing would have been less predictable than the urban discontents over land rights since independence, for these disturbances, in an ethnically plural society whose colonial history is marked by hostility between Indians and Fijians, were among the Fijians themselves. During the whole of the colonial period, from cession of the islands to Britain in 1874 to independence in 1970, the coexistence of Europeans, Indians (first imported as indentured labor), and Fijians had been forged out of land law. Successive colonial administrations labored for four decades around the turn of the century to secure for Fijians a precapitalist system of property rights that would become a bulwark against encroachment by a white planter and settler community. The system “by law established” subsequently became the basis for hostility between several generations of rural Fijian landowners and a growing number of landless Indian peasants. By the time self-government arrived in the mid-1960s, Indian access to land and Fijian resistance thereto was the most important issue threatening the stability of the new state, and government-commissioned reports and legislative acts pointed to this conflict of interest as the most significant problem for an independent Fiji. But the authoritative history written from commission reports and based on administrative policy often conceals another history, that formed by the experience of everyday life, where opposed groups confront each other over interests not always visible to legislators and judges, and often less so to scholarly observers.
3
Haller. "The Different Meanings of Land in the Age of Neoliberalism: Theoretical Reflections on Commons and Resilience Grabbing from a Social Anthropological Perspective." Land 8, no. 7 (June 27, 2019): 104. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land8070104.
Full textAbstract:
Recent debates in social anthropology on land acquisitions highlight the need to go further back in history in order to analyse their impacts on local livelihoods. The debate over the commons in economic and ecological anthropology helps us understand some of today’s dynamics by looking at precolonial common property institutions and the way they were transformed by Western colonization to state property and then, later in the age of neoliberalism, to privatization and open access. This paper focuses on Africa and refers to the work of critical scholars who show that traditional land tenure was misinterpreted as customary tenure without full property rights, while a broader literature on the commons shows that common-pool resources (pasture, fisheries, wildlife, forestry etc.) have been effectively managed by locally-developed common property institutions. This misinterpretation continues to function as a legacy in both juridical and popular senses. Moreover, the transformation of political systems and the notion of customary land tenure produced effects of central importance for today’s investment context. During colonial times a policy of indirect rule based on new elites was created to manage customary lands of so-called native groups who could use the land as long as it was of no value to the state. However, this land formally remained in the hands of the state, which also claimed to manage common-pool resources through state institutions. The neoliberal policies that are now demanded by donor agencies have had two consequences for land and land-related common-pool resources. On the one hand, states often lack the financial means to enforce their own natural resource legislation and this has led to de facto open access. On the other hand, land legally fragmented from its common-pool resources has been transformed from state to private property. This has enabled new elites and foreign investors to claim private property on formerly commonly-held land, which also leads to the loss of access to land related common-pool resources for more marginal local actors. Thus, the paper argues that this process does not just lead to land grabbing but to commons grabbing as well. This has furthermore undermined the resilience and adaptive capacity of local populations because access to common-pool resources is vital for the livelihoods of more marginal groups, especially in times of crisis. Comparative studies undertaken on floodplains in Botswana, Cameroon, Mali, Tanzania and Zambia based on a New Institutional Political Ecology (NIPE) approach illustrate this process and its impacts and show how institutional transformations are key to understanding the impacts of large-scale land acquisitions (LSLA) and investments in Africa.
4
Robertson, David Brian. "Leader to Laggard: How Founding Institutions Have Shaped American Environmental Policy." Studies in American Political Development 34, no. 1 (April 2020): 110–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0898588x20000024.
Full textAbstract:
The U.S. led the world in environmental policy in the 1970s, but now lags behind comparable nations and resists joining others in tackling climate change. Two embedded, entwined, and exceptional American institutions—broad private property rights and competitive federalism—are necessary for explaining this shift. These two institutions shaped the exceptional stringency of 1970s American environmental laws and the powerful backlash against these laws that continues today. American colonies ensured broad private rights to use land and natural resources for profit. The colonies and the independent state governments that followed wielded expansive authority to govern this commodified environment. In the 1780s, Congress underwrote state governance of the privatized environment by directing the parceling and transfer of federal land to private parties and of environmental governance to future states. The 1787 Constitution cemented these relationships and exposed states to interstate economic competition. Environmental laws of the 1970s imposed unprecedented challenges to the environmental prerogatives long protected by these institutions, and the beneficiaries responded with a wide-ranging counterattack. Federalism enabled this opposition to build powerful regional alliances to stymie action on climate change. These overlooked institutional factors are necessary to explain why Canadian and American environmental policies have diverged.
5
Van Der Vyver, Johan. "The Protection and Promotion of a People’s Right to Mineral Resources in Africa: International and Municipal Perspectives." Law and Development Review 11, no. 2 (June 26, 2018): 739–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ldr-2018-0036.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Development programs in many African countries include the reallocation of land and the nationalization of mineral resources for the benefit of less privileged communities in those countries. Implementing these programs is, however, quite complicated. This paper pays special attention to the confiscation of the land of white farmers in Zimbabwe as part of a development program, and the rapid decline of the economy of that country in consequence of this program. It serves as a reminder that depriving landowners of their property rights is counterproductive and is therefore not a feasible development strategy. As far as the right to explore natural resources is concerned, the paper highlights the repeated resolutions of the United Nations proclaiming the “inalienable right of all states freely to dispose of their natural resources in accordance with their national interests” as an inherent aspect of sovereignty [e.g. G.A. Res. 626, 7 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 20), at 18, U.N. Doc. A/2361 (1952).], with occasional reminders that developing countries were in need of encouragement “in the proper use and exploitation of their natural wealth and resources” [e.g. E.S.C. Res. 1737, 54 U.N. ESCOR, Supp., No. 1 (1973).]. These resolutions were adopted in the context of the decolonization policy of the United Nations and were mainly aimed at denouncing the exploitation of the mineral resources of African countries by colonial powers [G.A. Res. 2288, 22 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 16), at 48, U.N. Doc. A/6716 (1967)., para 3]. The emphasis of international law relating to the natural resources over time also emphasized the right to self-determination of peoples. As early as 1958, the General Assembly, in a resolution through which the Commission on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources was established, stated that the “permanent sovereignty over natural wealth and resources” of states is “a basic constituent of the right to self-determination” [G.A. Res. 1314, 13 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 18), at 27, U.N. Doc. A/4090 (1958).]. The African Charter on Human and People’s Rights similarly provides “All peoples shall freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources. This right shall be exercised in the exclusive interest of the people. In no case shall a people be deprived of it” [Art 21(1)]. This provision featured prominently in several judgments of courts of law, such as the one of the South African Constitutional Court in the case of Bengwenyama Minerals (Pty) Ltd & Others v Gemorah Resources (Pty) Ltd & Others [2011] (3) BCLR 229 (CC) (3) BCLR 229 (CC) and of the African Court of Human and People’s Rights in the case of Social and Economic Rights Action Centre (SERAC) v Nigeria (2001) AHRLR 60 (ACHPR 2001), Communication 155/96, 15th Annual Report. AHRLR 60 (Social and Economic Rights Action Centre (SERAC) v Nigeria (2001) AHRLR 60 (ACHPR 2001), Communication 155/96, 15th Annual Report.) Communication 155/96. In view of these directives of international law, the paper will critically analyze the South African Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002, which deprived landowners of the ownership of unexplored minerals and petroleum products and proclaimed mineral and petroleum resources to be “the common heritage of all the people of South Africa” with the state as the custodian thereof.
6
Firmin-Sellers, Kathryn. "The Politics of Property Rights." American Political Science Review 89, no. 4 (December 1995): 867–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2082514.
Full textAbstract:
The study of land tenure polarizes the field of development. Neoclassical scholars lobby for a move toward private property rights, while other economists and historians defend the maintenance of customary land tenure. I argue that the development scholars' focus on the structure of property rights obscures a more fundamental problem of land reform—that of enforcement. Property rights will not inspire individual investment and economic growth unless political institutions give the ruler of a local community or nation-state sufficient coercive authority to silence those who advocate an alternative, more distributionally favorable property rights system. At the same time, political institutions must force the ruler to establish a credible commitment to that property rights system. I illustrate this theoretical argument through an analysis of property rights institutions in Akyem Abuakwa, a traditional state in colonial Ghana.
7
Han, Zonghie. "Japanese Colonial Land Survey Project and Korean Economic Take-off." Research in World Economy 11, no. 6 (October 8, 2020): 185. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/rwe.v11n6p185.
Full textAbstract:
The mystery of the newly industrialized countries (NICs)s success, including Korea’s take-off, can be addressed by using the concept of a property representation system, as initiated by de Soto (2000). This property representation system, which has been further described as the mystery of capital formation, was supposedly established in Korea during the Japanese colonialization of 1910-1945. The Korean industrialization in this period has been well described by the ‘developmental state’ approach, but the property representation system can reveal the key role of property rights as an institution in the economic take-off, focusing on its incentive function.
8
Kaiwar, Vasant. "The Colonial State, Capital and the Peasantry in Bombay Presidency." Modern Asian Studies 28, no. 4 (October 1994): 793–832. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0026749x00012543.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractDespite the commodification of land and labor in colonial Bombay Presidency, capitalism and its associated dynamic (modern economic growth via innovation, specialization, and so on resulting in the improved productiveness of labor) did not, by and large, develop.The colonial state reformed the property structure, bringing the notion of a single owner for each property, ending the overlapping property rights of the pre-colonial regimes. Capital was freely deployed to make profits of alienation, if not profits of enterprise. Yet, small-scale family-labor farms continued as the backbone of Bombay agriculture. The peasantry could not sustain capitalist-style growth but did maintain a tenacious hold on the land with the help of the state, and its own capacity to endure horrendous levels of exploitation and poverty; the former symptomized by high land prices and low crop prices paid to the producer; the latter by mass peasant insolvency. The power of capital was in direct proportion to the peasants' desperate need for land and loans. The colonial state was fully aware that this kind of relationship was inimical to development, but did little to bring capital into a productive relationship with landed property. The colonial state came to resemble a classic agrarian bureaucracy rather than a capitalist state. Despite some commitments to modernization, it ruled over an impoverished agrarian society. This paper attempts to locate this result in the specific interests and interactions of the major social agents of rural Bombay: the state, capital and the peasantry.
9
Pellissery, Sony, and Ivar Lødemel. "Property and Social Citizenship: Social Policy beyond the North." Social Policy and Society 19, no. 2 (March 2, 2020): 275–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1474746419000575.
Full textAbstract:
This article examines how the property rights in land have come to be a constitutive element of social citizenship. Reviewing the theoretical developments on the idea of social citizenship since Marshall’s seminal essay on Citizenship and Social Class (1950), this introductory article identifies four processes which bring property rights to the centre stage of social rights. First, recognition of entitlement beyond ownership opens up different social functions of property. Social citizenship as a tool is able to demand contextually appropriate rights from the bundle of rights that property is constituted of. Second, the idea of social citizenship is global today, and has transcended nation-state boundaries. How trade and communications impact property in land shapes the realisation of social rights. Three, active citizens contribute to the creation of public spaces in emerging urban residential areas. Citizens make social claims on such spaces through radical forms of insurgent citizenship. Four, planning as a tool, which organises property for the realisation of citizens’ social rights, is able to meet the competing objectives of human rights and speculative profiteering by real estate owners. These four aspects become essential to understand how social citizenship is unfolding, particularly in the Global South.
10
Banerjee, Abhijit, and Lakshmi Iyer. "History, Institutions, and Economic Performance: The Legacy of Colonial Land Tenure Systems in India." American Economic Review 95, no. 4 (August 1, 2005): 1190–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/0002828054825574.
Full textAbstract:
We analyze the colonial land revenue institutions set up by the British in India, and show that differences in historical property rights institutions lead to sustained differences in economic outcomes. Areas in which proprietary rights in land were historically given to landlords have significantly lower agricultural investments and productivity in the post-independence period than areas in which these rights were given to the cultivators. These areas also have significantly lower investments in health and education. These differences are not driven by omitted variables or endogeneity problems; they probably arise because differences in historical institutions lead to very different policy choices.
Dissertations / Theses on the topic "Land policy; Colonial state; Property rights"
1
Bunton, Martin P. "The role of private property in the British administration of Palestine, 1917-1936." Thesis, University of Oxford, 1997. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.244156.
Full text
2
Dube, Sibusiso Raymond. "The provision of full ownership rights to Soweto households as a government service delivery priority in the new dispensation." Diss., 2017. http://hdl.handle.net/10500/25136.
Full textAbstract:
Land is a finite resource for sustainable livelihoods of the general population and the foundation of South Africa’s diverse culture. However, throughout our South African history, the land question has been a contentious, sensitive and emotive issue ever since the inception of the colonial era, thus the democratic dispensation views the Land Reform Programme as a panacea to the historical inequalities with regard to land ownership, distribution and forced removals, as well as viewing it as a tool to achieve socio-economic and political stability.
Since globally, land reform arose mainly because of inequalities of resources or to control resources,the overall view in South Africa is that land ownership can be optimally utilised for redistribution, reform, effective administration and for developmental purposes; and, as a result, change in land ownership, use and control has become imperative.
This study seeks to evaluate the democratic government’s intervention and the efficacy of the urban tenure reform programme in dealing with unequal and racial ownership of urban land in the old(pre 1994) former Black urban settlements such SOWETO, by investigating legislation and policy related to land ownership, and the current tenure and ownership system and status in both Zola and Orlando.Document analysis is a form of qualitative research used by the researcher to provide voice and meaning around an assessed researched topic, and findings further reveal the challenges faced in the implementation or execution phaseof the urban tenure remedial programme, and the current status and the remedial programme benefits, while recommendations are made in terms of systems and processes in order to accelerate service delivery, and with the emphasis of the importance of capacity building for stakeholders, including the benefiting community. misperception that the Land Reform Programme only relates to the “rural” areas and “the transfer of agricultural land from dissertation investigates the evolution of land tenure or ownership rights in the former black urban human settlements, looking at the discriminatory laws and policies of the past, consequent political resistance and other milestones as well as the democratic government’s interventions in this regard whites to ...Public Administration
M. P. A.
Books on the topic "Land policy; Colonial state; Property rights"
1
Jacobs, Harvey Martin. State property rights laws: The impact of those laws on my land. Cambridge, Mass: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1999.
Find full text
2
Twenty years to nowhere: Property rights, land management and conservation in Ethiopia. Lawrenceville, NJ: Red Sea Press, 2000.
Find full text
3
United States. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on the Constitution. GAO's recent report on the implementation of Executive Order 12630 and the state of federal agency protections of private property rights: Hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eighth Congress, first session, October 16, 2003. Washington: U.S. G.P.O., 2003.
Find full text
4
Assembly, Canada Legislature Legislative. Bill: An act respecting the rights of innocent occupants of land in Upper Canada, under titles which prove defective. Quebec: Thompson, 2002.
Find full text
5
Jacobs, Harvey Martin. State Property Rights Laws: The Impacts of Those Laws on My Land. Lincoln Inst of Land Policy, 1999.
Find full text
6
Proposals on reform to state land and housing legislation and policy. Colombo: Centre for Women's Research (CENWOR), 2008.
Find full text
7
US GOVERNMENT. Gao's Recent Report on the Implementation of Executive Order 12630 and the State of Federal Agency Protections of Private Property Rights: Hearing Bef. Government Printing Office, 2003.
Find full text
8
Shatkin, Gavin. Cities for Profit. Cornell University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.7591/cornell/9781501709906.001.0001.
Full textAbstract:
In the past three decades, urban real estate megaprojects—massive, master planned, for profit urban developments—have captured the imagination of politicians and policy-makers across Asia. This book argues that state actors have been major drivers of these transformative projects, and have realized them through increasingly aggressive efforts to reclaim or acquire land, and to transfer land rights to corporate developers. State actors have specifically sought to monetize land as a strategy of state empowerment, a means to generate budget revenue, distribute patronage, and drive economic growth. This newly assertive state role in land markets constitutes the real estate turn in urban politics in the subtitle of the book. This real estate turn has significant implications for social, political, and ecological change in these societies. The book explores the varied spatial impacts of this real estate turn in three cities—Jakarta, Kolkata, and Chongqing—that differ in their systems of property rights and urban governance.
Book chapters on the topic "Land policy; Colonial state; Property rights"
1
Knoepfel, Peter. "Property." In Public Policy Resources, 161–78. Policy Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447345053.003.0011.
Full textAbstract:
The application of the resource-oriented approach used in this book confirms the prominent role of the resource Property in the resource portfolios of each of the three policy actors. Property consists of the ownership of property and use rights to material and immaterial (natural, manufactured, social and/or human) resources and the various bundles of goods and/or services they provide to the owner. One of the prominent services of such resources involves their role as policy resource (abstract use of such resources as opposed to concrete uses). The most prominent material resource is the ownership of (strategic) land, which enables both public and private actors to play a predominant role in policy formulation and, especially, implementation processes. The chapter illustrates the mobilization and use modes of the resource Property in the areas of spatial planning, institutional policies (creation of a Swiss canton) , public accounting and state infrastructural policies (land acquisition policies for communal land use policy). It stresses the role of legal appeals by target groups or beneficiary organizations and the privileged position occupied landowners in the planning and implementation of large urban projects.
2
Hammersley, Rachel. "Innovation in Substance: ‘Empire follows the Balance of Property’." In James Harrington, 97–108. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198809852.003.0006.
Full textAbstract:
Chapter 6 focuses on Harrington’s innovative theory regarding the relationship between land and political power. It asserts the novelty of the theory, as claimed by Harrington and acknowledged by others, as well as its relationship to Harrington’s wider innovation of designing a large state republic. The chapter then elucidates the key elements of Harrington’s theory, its implications for his typology of government, and its application to England. Once a government suited to the distribution of property is established within a state it must be preserved by means of an agrarian law, and again the details of this provision are explored. The chapter also pays attention to Harrington’s distinctive imperial policy which emphasized colonial expansion within, rather than beyond Europe, and his consequent emphasis on the importance of the army rather than the navy. Thus Harrington’s innovative theory about property and power is presented as generating various other novelties.
3
Ablavsky, Gregory. "Epilogue." In Federal Ground, 231–42. Oxford University Press, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190905699.003.0009.
Full textAbstract:
Three federal systems coalesced from the ad hoc practices of governance in the Northwest and Southwest Territories—over land, Indian affairs, and the territories themselves. The foundations for the federal land system laid in these early struggles persisted and survived through the Civil War and beyond, as federal adjudication of land rights expanded. The federal government also codified its earlier experiments in compensation, formalizing its payments to Natives and whites even as it also continued to pay for brutal, even genocidal violence against Native peoples from the federal treasury. Finally, even Congress continued to use conditional admission to try to control newly admitted states, the territorial system entrenched the expectation that the plural sovereignty and ownership of the borderlands was temporary; statehood represented the moment when these preexisting claims supposedly passed away. Statehood also helped doom the flawed vision that the federal government would serve as a neutral arbiter between Natives and whites. Rather, statehood gave the former territories perhaps the most effective way yet to make claims on the federal government. As these new states increasingly became the federal government—in Congress, in the cabinet, and in the presidency—they turned their goals into federal law. This result occurred within the federal lands, where states successfully bent federal land policy to serve their expansionist aims, and in Indian affairs, where state representatives successfully persuaded the federal government to back their assertions of sovereignty against the compelling sovereignty claims of the Cherokee and Native Nations in the struggle known as Removal. This effectiveness at exploiting federal power allowed these former territories to rapidly remake these former borderlands to satisfy their long-standing settler colonial aspirations.
Reports on the topic "Land policy; Colonial state; Property rights"
1
Ashley, Caitlyn, Elizabeth Spencer Berthiaume, Philip Berzin, Rikki Blassingame, Stephanie Bradley Fryer, John Cox, E. Samuel Crecelius, et al. Law and Policy Resource Guide: A Survey of Eminent Domain Law in Texas and the Nation. Edited by Gabriel Eckstein. Texas A&M University School of Law Program in Natural Resources Systems, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.37419/eenrs.eminentdomainguide.
Full textAbstract:
Eminent Domain is the power of the government or quasi-government entities to take private or public property interests through condemnation. Eminent Domain has been a significant issue since 1879 when, in the case of Boom Company v. Patterson, the Supreme Court first acknowledged that the power of eminent domain may be delegated by state legislatures to agencies and non-governmental entities. Thus, the era of legal takings began. Though an important legal dispute then, more recently eminent domain has blossomed into an enduring contentious social and political problem throughout the United States. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Thus, in the wake of the now infamous decision in Kelo v. City of New London, where the Court upheld the taking of private property for purely economic benefit as a “public use,” the requirement of “just compensation” stands as the primary defender of constitutionally protected liberty under the federal constitution. In response to Kelo, many state legislatures passed a variety of eminent domain reforms specifically tailoring what qualifies as a public use and how just compensation should be calculated. Texas landowners recognize that the state’s population is growing at a rapid pace. There is an increasing need for more land and resources such as energy and transportation. But, private property rights are equally important, especially in Texas, and must be protected as well. Eminent domain and the condemnation process is not a willing buyer and willing seller transition; it is a legally forced sale. Therefore, it is necessary to consider further improvements to the laws that govern the use of eminent domain so Texas landowners can have more assurance that this process is fair and respectful of their private property rights when they are forced to relinquish their land. This report compiles statutes and information from the other forty-nine states to illustrate how they address key eminent domain issues. Further, this report endeavors to provide a neutral third voice in Texas to strike a more appropriate balance between individual’s property rights and the need for increased economic development. This report breaks down eminent domain into seven major topics that, in addition to Texas, seemed to be similar in many of the other states. These categories are: (1) Awarding of Attorneys’ Fee; (2) Compensation and Valuation; (3) Procedure Prior to Suit; (4) Condemnation Procedure; (5) What Cannot be Condemned; (6) Public Use & Authority to Condemn; and (7) Abandonment. In analyzing these seven categories, this report does not seek to advance a particular interest but only to provide information on how Texas law differs from other states. This report lays out trends seen across other states that are either similar or dissimilar to Texas, and additionally, discusses interesting and unique laws employed by other states that may be of interest to Texas policy makers. Our research found three dominant categories which tend to be major issues across the country: (1) the awarding of attorneys’ fees; (2) the valuation and measurement of just compensation; and (3) procedure prior to suit.