Property trap in the digital era

Objective: to identify trends in the use of property by entrepreneurs after the introduction of A. Harberger’s system and the complete digitalization of property relations.Methods: the article uses the methodology of the theory of inventive problem solving, which is used to assess the consequences of digitalization of property relations and the introduction of A. Harberger’s system.Results: having analyzed A. Harberger’s system, the author states that it is applicable only for the digitalization of property relations, since it provides maximum transparency of property rights, income generated by it, and the qualitative features of this property. A. Harberger’s system encourages the continuous transfer of property from one person to another, which can lead to a “no-property” regime. As a result, the entrepreneur’s property and profit-making techniques become publicly available, which undermines the foundations of entrepreneurship in the digital economy. Entrepreneurs find themselves in a property trap.Scientific novelty: in accordance with the methodology of the theory of inventive problem solving, the article identifies property objects classified by their functions: “engine”, “working body”, “transmission”, “computer”, and “energy source”. It is stated that the trends of technological improvement and digitalization turn the “computer” into the dominant factor of production, around which all production processes are built. This will increase its complexity, as well as the cost of purchasing and maintaining it. The production versatility of the “computer” will bring to the fore entrepreneurs who reduce the cost of the “computer” by providing its capacity for rent to the widest possible range of persons. As a result, today’s entrepreneurs will be transformed into administrators of access to the computer and into entrepreneurs of the non-digital, utility sector of the economy.Practical significance: the main provisions and conclusions of the article can be used to develop measures to maintain business activity in the new conditions.

«гаражная экономика», Digital economy, Property, No-property, Digitalization, Tax, System, Harberger, Theory of inventive problem solving, TIPS, “Garage economy”

1. Cronkleton P., Larson A. Formalization and Collective Appropriation of Space on Forest Frontiers: Comparing Communal and Individual Property Systems in the Peruvian and Ecuadoran Amazon // Society & Natural Resources. 2015. Vol. 28, № 5. Pp. 496-512. DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2015.1014609

2. Private property and economic efficiency: A study of a common-pool resource / R. Grafton, D. Squires, K. Fox // Journal of Law & Economics. 2000. Vol. 43, № 2. Pp. 679-713. DOI: 10.1086/467469

3. Brewer J., Libecap G. Property rights and the public trust doctrine in environmental protection and natural resource conservation. // The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 2007. № 53. Pp. 1-17. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8489.2007.00423.x

4. Познер Э. А., Вейл Э. Г. Собственность - всего лишь другое название монополии // Актуальные проблемы экономики и права. 2018. Т. 12, № 2. С. 334-384. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21202/1993-047X.12.2018.2.334-384

5. Ostrom E. Governing the commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. P. 280.

6. Netting R. McC. What Alpine Peasants Have in Common: Observations on Communal Tenure in a Swiss Village // Human Ecology. 1976. Vol. 4. Pp. 135-146.

7. Olson M. The Logic of Collective Action. Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965.

8. Quiggin J. Common property, private property and regulation the case of dryland // Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 1986. Vol. 30, № 2-3, Pp. 103-117.

9. Harberger A. C. Issues of Tax Reform for Latin America. In Joint Tax Program of the Organization of American States eds, Fiscal Policy for Economic Growth in Latin America, Baltimore // The Johns Hopkins Press. 1965. Pp. 116-121.

10. Greenwood J., Huffman G. Tax analysis in a real-business-cycle model. On measuring Harberger triangles and Okun gaps // Journal of Monetary Economics. 1991. Vol. 27. Pp. 167-190.

11. Harberger A.C. The Measurement of Waste // American Economic Review LIV. 1964. Pp. 58-76.

12. Mendoza E., Milesi-Ferretti G., Asea P. On the ineffectiveness of tax policy in altering long-run growth: Harberger's superneutrality conjecture // Journal of Public Economics. 1997. Vol. 66. Pp. 99-126.

13. Татаринов К. А., Зверев А. Ф. Инвестиции как фактор развития экономики страны // Азимут научных исследований: экономика и управление. 2020. Т. 9, № 2 (31). С. 155-158.

14. Тагаров Б. Ж. Факторы обособления промышленного производства от сферы услуг в условиях перехода к индустрии 4.0 // Креативная экономика. 2020. Т. 14, № 1. С. 59-72. DOI: 10.18334/ce.14.1.100471

15. Федотов Д. Ю. Электронные технологии в таможенном деле, способствующие снижению коррупции // Актуальные проблемы развития ЕАЭС в условиях современных глобальных изменений: материалы первой Всероссийской (национальной) научно-практической конференции. 2019. С. 6-12.

16. Самаруха А. В. Основные принципы российского промышленного научно-технологического роста в методологии прогноза инновационного развития // Экономика и предпринимательство. 2019. № 3 (104). С. 284-287.

17. Шпаковский Н. А., Новицкая Е. Л. Триз. Практика целевого изобретательства. М.: ФОРУМ, 2011. 335 с.

18. Атанов А. А., Рудяков В. А. Гипотеза об аксиологическом основании институционализации общественных отношений // Историко-экономические исследования. 2020. Т. 21, № 2. С. 253-273. DOI: 10.17150/2308-2488.2020.21(2).253-273

19. de Soto H. A tale of two civilizations in the era of Facebook and blockchain // Small Business Economics. 2017. Vol. 49, № 4. Pp. 729-739.