Next Article in Journal
The Best Practice of CRM Implementation for Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises
Previous Article in Journal
What Form of Visibility Affects Earnings Management? Evidence from Italian Family and Non-Family Firms
Article Menu
Issue 1 (March) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Adm. Sci. 2019, 9(1), 21; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9010021

Land Governance Re-Arrangements: The One-Country One-System (OCOS) Versus One-Country Two-System (OCTS) Approach

Department of Land Management, Technical University of Munich, Arcisstrasse 21, 80333 München, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 16 January 2019 / Revised: 23 February 2019 / Accepted: 1 March 2019 / Published: 6 March 2019
  |  
PDF [17099 KB, uploaded 14 March 2019]
  |  

Abstract

This paper evaluates how land governance is re-arranged in a state re-structuring process. We compare the cases of the (re-)unification of China with Hong Kong with that of West and East Germany. The division and (re-)unification of these states mark different land governance re-arrangements. The China-Hong Kong (re-)unification relied on a one-country two-system (OCTS) approach, while in West and East Germany, (re-)unification resulted in the creation of a one-country one-system (OCOS). Our key interest is to identify similarities and differences in both cases and the implications of the differences. To support the analysis, we view land governance and (re-)unification from theoretical to practical lenses—structuration theory and the government tools-based approach. This supports the construction of a conceptual and analytical framework, with which we conduct an in-depth exploration to evaluate land governance re-arrangements. We find that the conceptual and analytical framework proves effective for countries, with entirely different land governance regimes, to decide whether to merge or adapt. We do not conclude which approaches for (re-)unification are appropriate to land governance re-arrangements since all countries have different historical contexts and institutional arrangements. Instead, we recommend that governments consider adaptive land governance in signification structures and focus on hierarchical enforcement in legitimation structures. While multi-level land governance in the domination structure phase is strongly required, issue-and-project-based land governance has a pivotal role in providing cross-boundary infrastructures. Nevertheless, further empirical analysis is recommended to verify how and where the re-arrangement processes are initiated and structured. View Full-Text
Keywords: land governance; (re-)unification; transformation; structuration theory; tools of government land governance; (re-)unification; transformation; structuration theory; tools of government
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).
SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, C.; de Vries, W.T.; Chigbu, U.E. Land Governance Re-Arrangements: The One-Country One-System (OCOS) Versus One-Country Two-System (OCTS) Approach. Adm. Sci. 2019, 9, 21.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Adm. Sci. EISSN 2076-3387 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top