\”It turns out that law-and-economics is not only the dominant theory of private law, but it also helps you think about the idea of Zion. If you look at the pattern of early Mormon settlement in Utah, you see a fairly common pattern repeated. The first settlers in the Salt Lake Valley created a single, large communal field. Everyone worked the field and everyone was entitled to produce from the field. Later, the field, which continued to be fenced as a single mass, was subdivided into lots apportioned to individuals. Finally, the concept of the “Big Field” was abandoned in favor of individually owned lots that were dispersed.\”

I like how you explained that. Very helpful. Thanks.

Here’s another theory: initially the saints didn’t really know how to do agriculture in the arid desert. So it made sense to wait a little while before dividing up the land, in order to figure out how much each person would need, set up irrigation systems, etc. Once the lots are divided up, it’s pretty hard to un-divide them.

I’m not familiar with any research on the economics of land division and sub-division, despite the fact that this obviously has a strong and persistent effect on urban economies…does anybody know of anything interesting?

I think the evidence is abundant that divided responsibility (i.e. stewardship, agency, or accountability) is spritually healthier in the long run compared to a state with no such division. And the best example of this principle by far is the divinely established order of the family, where God places responsibility for the temporal and spiritual salvation of children squarely into the hands (and on the heads) of the parents.

It may very well take a community to properly raise a child, but someone, somewhere has to have primary responsibility. That is what stewardship is all about.

This is how I tend to view the current welfare program in principle. In practice, I think there are many problems, though it seems much better than any other welfare program b/c of the way that it deals with these agency costs on an individual basis (at the bishop and welfare-council level rather than at a more aggregate level; the important difference is that our fast-offerings are voluntarily consecrated in contrast to the more explicit United Order expectation of full consecration…).