Contributor, Editor, Supervisor
2,313
edits
Difference between revisions of "Gazriig gerchilgee dagdag (Mongolia)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Gazriig gerchilgee dagdag (Mongolia) (view source)
Revision as of 19:18, 5 February 2026
, 5 Februaryno edit summary
Editor2018 (talk | contribs) |
Editor2018 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
This informal rule has shaped a broad range of behaviour. Buyers often assume that the land accompanies the house; sellers exploit that expectation, occasionally transferring only the structure. Some owners choose not to register the underlying land to avoid taxes and renewal fees, confident that possession of the certificate(''gerchilgee'') offers adequate protection (Plueckhahn 2020: 104–6<ref>Plueckhahn, R. 2020. ''Shaping Urban Futures in Mongolia: Ulaanbaatar, Dynamic Ownership and Economic Flux''. London: UCL Press.</ref>). Construction companies holding short-term ''ezemshih'' rights use those same papers to pressure authorities for renewal, sometimes mobilising residents to protest delays (World Bank 2015: 25–27). The belief that the land ‘follows’ the property thus becomes a tool of negotiation as well as security. As documented in the World Bank’s ''Land Administration and Management in Ulaanbaatar'' (2015: 25–27), disputes over duplicate certificates and unregistered ‘carve-outs’ of public plots have become emblematic of the saying ''gazar gerchilgeeg dagdag''. | This informal rule has shaped a broad range of behaviour. Buyers often assume that the land accompanies the house; sellers exploit that expectation, occasionally transferring only the structure. Some owners choose not to register the underlying land to avoid taxes and renewal fees, confident that possession of the certificate(''gerchilgee'') offers adequate protection (Plueckhahn 2020: 104–6<ref>Plueckhahn, R. 2020. ''Shaping Urban Futures in Mongolia: Ulaanbaatar, Dynamic Ownership and Economic Flux''. London: UCL Press.</ref>). Construction companies holding short-term ''ezemshih'' rights use those same papers to pressure authorities for renewal, sometimes mobilising residents to protest delays (World Bank 2015: 25–27). The belief that the land ‘follows’ the property thus becomes a tool of negotiation as well as security. As documented in the World Bank’s ''Land Administration and Management in Ulaanbaatar'' (2015: 25–27), disputes over duplicate certificates and unregistered ‘carve-outs’ of public plots have become emblematic of the saying ''gazar gerchilgeeg dagdag''. | ||
The social logic behind it is performative rather than doctrinal. Ownership in Ulaanbaatar is demonstrated through visible acts – fencing, extending, investing, and maintaining – backed by a piece of paper that serves less as legal evidence than as a token of credibility (Plueckhahn 2017: 12–17<ref>Plueckhahn, R. 2017. ‘The Power of Faulty Paperwork: Dynamic Ownership in Ulaanbaatar’. ''Inner Asia'' 19 (1): 45–63.</ref>). As Plueckhahn observes, Mongolians practise a form of ‘dynamic ownership’ that turns possession into an ongoing negotiation of legitimacy rather than a fixed legal state (Plueckhahn 2020: 100–16). In this sense, '' | The social logic behind it is performative rather than doctrinal. Ownership in Ulaanbaatar is demonstrated through visible acts – fencing, extending, investing, and maintaining – backed by a piece of paper that serves less as legal evidence than as a token of credibility (Plueckhahn 2017: 12–17<ref>Plueckhahn, R. 2017. ‘The Power of Faulty Paperwork: Dynamic Ownership in Ulaanbaatar’. ''Inner Asia'' 19 (1): 45–63.</ref>). As Plueckhahn observes, Mongolians practise a form of ‘dynamic ownership’ that turns possession into an ongoing negotiation of legitimacy rather than a fixed legal state (Plueckhahn 2020: 100–16). In this sense, ''gazar gerchilgeeg dagdag'' provides an ethical grammar of belonging. It reassures neighbours, lenders, and officials that one’s claim is legitimate because it is embodied, displayed, and socially confirmed (Sneath 2002: 181–83<ref>Sneath, D. 2002. ‘Mongolia in the “Age of the Market”: Pastoral Land-Use and the New Political Economy’. ''Central Asian Survey'' 21 (1): 129–46.</ref>). | ||
Institutionally, the rule performs what law fails to do. It supplies continuity in an insecure environment. The World Bank has described Mongolia’s ‘dual property registry’ and frequent database tampering, yet the system endures precisely because people rely on its informality (World Bank 2015: 19–27). The World Economic Forum ranks Mongolia among the weakest worldwide for property-rights protection, but its urban real-estate markets remain active (World Economic Forum 2019: 394–96<ref>World Economic Forum. 2019. ''Global Competitiveness Report'' 2019. Geneva: World Economic Forum. </ref>). Informal certainty substitutes formal clarity; transactions move forward on faith that paper and practice coincide. The result is what Plueckhahn calls a ‘productive anticommons’: overlapping rights that encourage construction, speculation, and circulation instead of paralysis (Plueckhahn 2020: 13–22). | Institutionally, the rule performs what law fails to do. It supplies continuity in an insecure environment. The World Bank has described Mongolia’s ‘dual property registry’ and frequent database tampering, yet the system endures precisely because people rely on its informality (World Bank 2015: 19–27). The World Economic Forum ranks Mongolia among the weakest worldwide for property-rights protection, but its urban real-estate markets remain active (World Economic Forum 2019: 394–96<ref>World Economic Forum. 2019. ''Global Competitiveness Report'' 2019. Geneva: World Economic Forum. </ref>). Informal certainty substitutes formal clarity; transactions move forward on faith that paper and practice coincide. The result is what Plueckhahn calls a ‘productive anticommons’: overlapping rights that encourage construction, speculation, and circulation instead of paralysis (Plueckhahn 2020: 13–22). | ||