The political economy of debating urban property rights: A response to rejoinder

Attention to, and precision in, how property rights are analysed should be cardinal to research in urban political economy. This methodology is presented in Obeng-Odoom and Haila (2024) , the focus of W.C. Lai's (2025) rejoinder. Contrary to Lai's claim that our work misquoted or misunderstood his position, a close reading of the relevant texts indicates otherwise. Instead, Lai's response reflects a particular interpretation of property rights that privileges private property and Coasian traditions, often at the expense of recognising community-based and uncertified land systems, particularly in the Global South. This sequel to the debate demonstrates that the alleged ‘misquotes’ are in fact accurate, and that some of the conclusions in Lai's work rest on unsubstantiated views. We argue that property rights scholarship benefits from open debate across traditions, but suggest that alternatives to the ideology of private property deserve fuller recognition. In this spirit, the article offers a counterpoint to Lai's position by highlighting the importance of original institutional political economy in the analysis of property and property rights. • Attention to, and precision in, how property rights are analysed are critical in research on cities. • Response to the article by Lai's (2025) • Claims carefully considered. • Property rights scholarship benefits from this kind of open debate across traditions, • But I suggest that alternatives to the ideology of private property deserve fuller recognition.