What do you think?
Rate this book
The New Enclosure: The Appropriation of Public Land in Neoliberal Britain
How public land has been stolen from us.
Much has been written about Britain's trailblazing post-1970s privatization program, but the biggest privatization of them all has until now escaped the privatization of land. Since Margaret Thatcher took power in 1979, and hidden from the public eye, about 10 per cent of the entire British land mass, including some of its most valuable real estate, has passed from public to private hands. Forest land, defence land, health service land and above all else local authority land- for farming and school sports, for recreation and housing - has been sold off en masse. Why? How? And with what social, economic and political consequences? The New Enclosure provides the first ever study of this profoundly significant phenomenon, situating it as a centrepiece of neoliberalism in Britain and as a successor programme to the original eighteenth-century enclosures. With more public land still slated for disposal, the book identifies the stakes and asks what, if anything, can and should be done.
Much has been written about Britain's trailblazing post-1970s privatization program, but the biggest privatization of them all has until now escaped the privatization of land. Since Margaret Thatcher took power in 1979, and hidden from the public eye, about 10 per cent of the entire British land mass, including some of its most valuable real estate, has passed from public to private hands. Forest land, defence land, health service land and above all else local authority land- for farming and school sports, for recreation and housing - has been sold off en masse. Why? How? And with what social, economic and political consequences? The New Enclosure provides the first ever study of this profoundly significant phenomenon, situating it as a centrepiece of neoliberalism in Britain and as a successor programme to the original eighteenth-century enclosures. With more public land still slated for disposal, the book identifies the stakes and asks what, if anything, can and should be done.
384 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2018
22 people are currently reading
605 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
March 14, 2019
Looking for something to blow your (nerd) mind a little? Look no further.
The book 'The new enclosure' (VERSO, 2018) starts with asking what the UK's largest privatizations were - rescue and sale of the Royal Scottish Bank (32 billion £) or sale of council housing in the first 25 years of privatization (40 billion £)? Nope. In fact, it's been the rather 'invisible' and ongoing privatization of land. Since 1979, 10 per cent of the entire British land mass, worth more than (400 billion £) has been privatized.
The (conceptually) interesting premise of the book is that the 'neo' in neoliberalism refers to privatization. What is truly original about neoliberalism is the privatization of public ownership which was (obviously) not a central feature of 19th century liberalism. Since the 1980s, countries sold US$ 3.3 trillion in state assets and the privatization of land is the seminal political economy development under neoliberalism.
The book provides a very detailed account on the four decades of land privatization, arguing that this massive shift in landownership resulted in a reorientation of Britains's political economy (rentier capitalism) which also played a key role in driving inequality. For instance, 70 per cent of the public housing stock was sold since the 1970s (reducing public housing from 6.6 million dwellings to 2 million).
As a result, for the poorest 5 per cent, the proportion of incomes spent on housing rose from 25 to 45 percent between 1985 to 2015 while for those owning property, incomes have risen and spending on housing remained the same.
Similar (but of course very distinct) to processes of the 'original' enclosure, this new process of accumulation through dispossssion leads to a significant social dislocation and misery for the many.
The actual technicalities of shifting about 50 per cent of publicly owned land into private hands over the past 40 years or provides great insights into the actual and decentralized mechanisms of neoliberal reform. The reason why there is so little debate about land privatization is that there's not one big sale (like the railway) but endless sales of public land all over the country - driven by the ever same myth of value for money and the wealth generating power of the private sector.
The book 'The new enclosure' (VERSO, 2018) starts with asking what the UK's largest privatizations were - rescue and sale of the Royal Scottish Bank (32 billion £) or sale of council housing in the first 25 years of privatization (40 billion £)? Nope. In fact, it's been the rather 'invisible' and ongoing privatization of land. Since 1979, 10 per cent of the entire British land mass, worth more than (400 billion £) has been privatized.
The (conceptually) interesting premise of the book is that the 'neo' in neoliberalism refers to privatization. What is truly original about neoliberalism is the privatization of public ownership which was (obviously) not a central feature of 19th century liberalism. Since the 1980s, countries sold US$ 3.3 trillion in state assets and the privatization of land is the seminal political economy development under neoliberalism.
The book provides a very detailed account on the four decades of land privatization, arguing that this massive shift in landownership resulted in a reorientation of Britains's political economy (rentier capitalism) which also played a key role in driving inequality. For instance, 70 per cent of the public housing stock was sold since the 1970s (reducing public housing from 6.6 million dwellings to 2 million).
As a result, for the poorest 5 per cent, the proportion of incomes spent on housing rose from 25 to 45 percent between 1985 to 2015 while for those owning property, incomes have risen and spending on housing remained the same.
Similar (but of course very distinct) to processes of the 'original' enclosure, this new process of accumulation through dispossssion leads to a significant social dislocation and misery for the many.
The actual technicalities of shifting about 50 per cent of publicly owned land into private hands over the past 40 years or provides great insights into the actual and decentralized mechanisms of neoliberal reform. The reason why there is so little debate about land privatization is that there's not one big sale (like the railway) but endless sales of public land all over the country - driven by the ever same myth of value for money and the wealth generating power of the private sector.
March 25, 2023
Very good
August 27, 2024
Fascinating exploration of the privatising of public land since 1979 - unreported and on a vast scale, generating awful waste. Illuminating on facts and figures of the privatisation and Britain’s dysfunctional land market. However, disagreed on points around the place of nationalised planning permission - described as a staging point on the way to full nationalisation of land - in the supposedly rampantly neoliberal land market.
November 7, 2022
Well-written and tells an interesting story. However, while the author makes a compelling case for how the privatisation of public sector land has been motivated by neoliberal ideology, his treatment of Britain's extremely intrusive - and not neoliberal - planning system as dominated by developer interests is unpersuasive.
Furthermore, I spotted a few mistakes and misleading statements, which make me doubt whether the rest of the book has similar issues: the economic historian is Deirdre McCloskey, not Donald; it is misleading to imply that the fact many local authorities have no council housing means they don't have social housing when it's been transferred to housing associations.
Furthermore, I spotted a few mistakes and misleading statements, which make me doubt whether the rest of the book has similar issues: the economic historian is Deirdre McCloskey, not Donald; it is misleading to imply that the fact many local authorities have no council housing means they don't have social housing when it's been transferred to housing associations.
May 2, 2020
On the one hand the subject matter is one that is very interesting and underreported. The extent to which public land is sold off in the UK without public oversight is something that is absolutely worthy of writing about.
On the other this is an extremely dry book that took me a good while to get through. This is book is not inspiring or enjoyable, but it is important.
On the other this is an extremely dry book that took me a good while to get through. This is book is not inspiring or enjoyable, but it is important.
June 28, 2020
Excellently researched and compellingly argued. Both terrifying and anger-inspiring. A devastating indictment of Britain's political economy and it's unproductive, indeed destructive, obsession with land speculation.
August 3, 2020
Revelatory account of the largest privatisation that has occurred in Britain over the last forty years. Subtly and persuasively polemical of this, it provides a firm argument of why it is so important and why we all should care that this is happening beneath our feet.
May 13, 2021
Vital urgent and yet avoiding polemic.this is what we need as land is important and land ownership is ignored.
The thoroughness and the attempt to avoid being pointed means its not a page turner but you need to read
The thoroughness and the attempt to avoid being pointed means its not a page turner but you need to read
June 6, 2024
At times makes you feel borderline Georgist. Serious work here on the privatisation of land, the theorisation of the rent-capital nexus, and history of Britain's bizarre trajectory on this. Though, sparse with solutions beyond CLT and stopping the sale.
November 16, 2019
Like with the Islamic Caliphate, every inch lost from the Central Committee's control is a sin and every inch won is a blessing.
November 28, 2019
Eye opening read on the privatisation of public land
August 17, 2020
Great work Brett. Packed with important insights and very well articulated.
March 28, 2021
An important read.
Read
April 8, 2021Brett Christophers has done us all a great service by compiling this really clear account of just how it was that so much public land has been sold, and so many people didn't notice.
August 4, 2021
not the easiest read like writing style wise but genuinely rlly interesting icl
September 3, 2022
A fairly dry & sometimes ponderous treatment of a very important topic. A surprising Deutscher prize winner as the author's conclusions are not particularly radical or anti-systemic.
August 27, 2024
4.5
Ignoring that it took me over a year, this is such a worthwhile read.
Ignoring that it took me over a year, this is such a worthwhile read.
November 1, 2024
Pretty good account of importance of land, although sometimes the language is almost conspiratorial
December 31, 2023
Original take: A fascinating book bogged down in some bad copyediting.
Full length take: after a bit of a pause, clearly we went straight back to reading some dense wordy British stuff, this time on a topic that I’m sure most people know nothing about (and, as such, a more fruitful line of study I think—nothing better to show off your edumacated chops than pontificating on a niche area and subtly suggesting that you also happen to know about all the other, more quotidian affairs).
The main gist of this book, as the subtitle suggests, is an exhaustively researched history of how public land has been steadily chipped away and sold to the highest bidder over time. That makes for some dry reading, I will say, even with the addition of the thrust of the book, which is that This is Bad. You might think, “well of course it’s bad to sell off beautiful green land owned by the National Parks Service (or whatever the equivalent is)” but that’s not the point here, and some of my frustration with this book comes with how buried this point is.
To be honest, I’m not sure I’m even capable of summarizing the evidence behind the point but trust me when I say that Christophers make a compelling case for why the land underneath our feet, even in urban areas, represents a far greater value than the buildings on top of it (which, as per my property tax records even, is seen as the driver of value for my flat). And as such, the paltry ownership of land by public sources in the UK is partially responsible for the decline of the once great empire economy.
If you can get on board with that idea—and again, this book could really have used a copyeditor used to dealing with academics (why, oh why do we hear about land parcels in any one of sixteen different units, none of which are readily imaginable by the lay reader)—then the rest of the novel, which lays out the means by which various public trusts have been stripped of their holdings by a series of Labour and Tory governments, should appeal without being too shocking.
Full length take: after a bit of a pause, clearly we went straight back to reading some dense wordy British stuff, this time on a topic that I’m sure most people know nothing about (and, as such, a more fruitful line of study I think—nothing better to show off your edumacated chops than pontificating on a niche area and subtly suggesting that you also happen to know about all the other, more quotidian affairs).
The main gist of this book, as the subtitle suggests, is an exhaustively researched history of how public land has been steadily chipped away and sold to the highest bidder over time. That makes for some dry reading, I will say, even with the addition of the thrust of the book, which is that This is Bad. You might think, “well of course it’s bad to sell off beautiful green land owned by the National Parks Service (or whatever the equivalent is)” but that’s not the point here, and some of my frustration with this book comes with how buried this point is.
To be honest, I’m not sure I’m even capable of summarizing the evidence behind the point but trust me when I say that Christophers make a compelling case for why the land underneath our feet, even in urban areas, represents a far greater value than the buildings on top of it (which, as per my property tax records even, is seen as the driver of value for my flat). And as such, the paltry ownership of land by public sources in the UK is partially responsible for the decline of the once great empire economy.
If you can get on board with that idea—and again, this book could really have used a copyeditor used to dealing with academics (why, oh why do we hear about land parcels in any one of sixteen different units, none of which are readily imaginable by the lay reader)—then the rest of the novel, which lays out the means by which various public trusts have been stripped of their holdings by a series of Labour and Tory governments, should appeal without being too shocking.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews