- The concept of public ownership
- Differences from individual (private) property
- Freedom of right
- Property liability
- Matching interests
- The emergence of state property
- Benefits of public ownership
- Actual problems
- Alienation of property from private owners
In legal literature in recent times often used such concepts as "private and public property". Meanwhile, not everyone clearly understands the differences between them and often confuses them. Further in the article we will try to understand what property is, what features the public property possesses and how it can acquire such status.
Property is considered to be the central link of the modern economic system. It determines the objectives of the functioning of the national economic complex, the way of interaction between workers and means of production, determines the structure of society, methods of distribution of wealth, etc. Property relations affect the formation of other types of relations. They are recognized as systemically important.
What is property? The concept can be considered in 2 aspects. In a narrow sense, this is property that a subject can legally dispose of, use, or own. In a broad sense, property is a social relationship associated with the distribution / appropriation of wealth.
There are legal and economic content of the property. The latter is based on the interaction between the subject - the legal owner of the property and the object - material values, benefits.
The concept of public ownership
As it is known, any entity having legal grounds for this can own, dispose of and use property. A private person can act as an owner. In this case, talking about private property. All other material values are recognized as public property. This category should be distinguished from the concepts of “public place”, “property of a public association”, etc.
Currently, there is no single approach to interpreting the definition of "public property". It is generally accepted that everything that is not private is public.
Differences from individual (private) property
The differences between these two concepts are very significant. The main ones can be considered:
- The limits of freedom of tenure.
- Material liability.
- Control of actions in relation to objects.
- The comparison of interests.
Freedom of right
Under it should be understood the volume of powers of subjects in relation to public property. This freedom is expressed in the following. For example, a private individual has the right to sell his business, to transfer it to the state cultural fund. If the subject acts as a co-owner of public property, he cannot give the property to anyone. Moreover, he cannot refuse a share of participation until he leaves the corresponding society.
A private person has to bear all the costs associated with the property belonging to him. The co-owner of public property is a less interested subject, he feels less responsibility. For example, there was a strong wind that knocked the glass in the house. For the new glass ordinary citizen will have to pay for himself. Do not insert it - not in the interests of the person. If the glass is broken in a public building, none of the members of society will feel responsibility for themselves. The decision to insert a new glass will be made by the whole society or by a specially authorized body.
The private owner always wants to know about all the actions committed by the persons involved in relation to his property. Co-owners of social values are not so interested.
For example, some kind of structure is an object of collective ownership. A foreman was selected to carry out repairs, and he became an attracted manager. He, in turn, led the brigade to perform the necessary work. No member of the company is responsible for the quality control of repair measures. Accordingly, the observation of the progress of work is not carried out in full force. As a result, the repair may not be as high-quality as if it was conducted by the same team, but in a private house.
The private owner can choose what to produce, how to use his property, what to invest in it. For example, a citizen may plant a tree in his garden, since it is in his interest - he wants to harvest. Participants in collective ownership are not so interested in producing something for society, since such benefits are used to meet social needs.
As practice shows, co-owners of public property shift the responsibility for some kind of work to a specific participant. At the moment of sharing the benefits derived from the work, all members of society become interested.
The goal of the private owner is to make personal profit or create a comfortable environment for yourself. Public property is used for the benefit of society.
Public ownership is:
Municipal property is called property that is managed, owned and used by municipalities. State material values can be:
Collective public property in Russia - churches, public associations, political parties, etc.
The emergence of state property
Property can go into the category of state when:
- Nationalization. It involves the alienation of property in favor of the Russian Federation.
- Construction on budget funds. For example, public roads are public property.
- Acquisition of a controlling interest in a private company.
Benefits of public ownership
One of the key advantages of collective property is the presence of natural (natural) resources and a wide choice of directions for their use. Many available resources are used for the development of various industrial sectors. In this case, when using a single means of production, several goals are realized at once. For example, the coal mining industry creates a large number of jobs, allows many consumers to use the resource, and redirect the money received from the sale of products to meet social needs or to another industry (for example, metallurgical enterprises).
At the expense of state public property, there is an even division of benefits among citizens. For example, the FIU distributes part of the budget to finance pension coverage.
One of them is considered today to ensure the effective management of public property. Often, due to the limited interests of officials, economic development slows down significantly. For example, a citizen holds the position of administrator in the state media. He is not particularly interested in the introduction of new technologies, since he will not receive personal profit from this. Of course, in order to preserve wages, prevent the application of sanctions to him for improper performance of duties, he will carry out his tasks.
The extent of the lack of public ownership is directly related to status. The greater the number of people responsible, the less individual responsibility.
For example, the building of the municipal pre-school has come to an emergency condition and it has been transferred to the "demolished" category. The head of the institution will wait for transfer to another kindergarten or will begin to look for work on their own. At the same time he will not care much about the fate of children. A completely different attitude to the problem will be if the kindergarten is private. Its owner will do everything possible to find the premises, and will assure parents that the problem will be solved soon.
Inefficient management, unfortunately, is not the only problem. There are cases when officials use public property to meet their personal needs. Such actions cause significant damage to the economy.
Alienation of property from private owners
It represents the transfer of rights to an object from the owner to the state or municipality. Alienation may be voluntary or compulsory.
In the second case, the regulatory basis of the procedure is chosen depending on the type of property. For example, when alienating a structure, the norms of the Civil Code, the Group and a number of other acts apply. If public ownership of land arises, the key legal instrument is the Land Code.