Losing Ground: Business Power, Standardized Assets and the Regulation of Land 
Acquisition Taxes in Germany and Sweden

Doose, Hanna

doi:10.1093/ser/mwae003

アイテム詳細

登録内容を編集ファイル形式で保存

一時保存へ追加

タグ情報を表示リリース履歴を表示詳細要約

公開

学術論文

Losing Ground: Business Power, Standardized Assets and the Regulation of Land Acquisition Taxes in Germany and Sweden

MPS-Authors

/persons/resource/persons269351

Doose, Hanna
International Max Planck Research School on the Social and Political Constitution of the Economy, MPI for the Study of Societies, Max Planck Society;
Cologne Center for Comparative Politics, Universität zu Köln, Germany;

External Resource

https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwae003
(出版社版)

Fulltext (restricted access)

There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.

フルテキスト (公開)

SER_22_2024_Doose.pdf
(全文テキスト（全般）), 595KB

付随資料 (公開)

There is no public supplementary material available

引用

Doose, H. (2024). Losing Ground: Business Power, Standardized Assets and the Regulation of Land Acquisition Taxes in Germany and Sweden. Socio-Economic Review, 22(2), 765-785. doi:10.1093/ser/mwae003.

引用: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-000E-83CD-7

要旨

Previous literature on the nexus between land, finance and business power has not systematically analysed the role of the liquidity of businesses’ assets. Combining process tracing with a comparative design, this study contributes a perspective on the role of standardized assets for business power. It investigates land acquisition tax reforms asking why institutional landowners’ structural and instrumental power was successful in Sweden but not in Germany. In Germany, a reform was passed in 2021 which disadvantages the private market institutional landowners compared to their public counterparts. This study argues that the standardization of landed property as liquid stock enabled publicly listed property companies to unite with other stock market actors, increasing their power resources and allowing them to successfully promote their interests due to the liquidity demands of their assets. This stands in contrast to the poorer reception of the liquidity of private market actors in their land-related transactions.