## 4 Land and Economics
Surprisingly, the question of the (correct) determination of land value appears to have been somehow avoided by LSLAs literature so far. Besides few scattered references to the price of land allegedly paid in one large-scale land deal or another, only the literature investigating the issue of fair compensation for local populations and indigenous communities affected by LSLAs, expressed a more systematic interest in the land value issue ([PERSON], 2016). For instance, in his essay addressing fair compensation in transnational land deals, [PERSON] (2017) discussed the controversial aspects related to the correct determination of land value using a law and economics perspective. Among the other cases revised in this essay, the discussion around the famous _Timber Creek Case_ (See _[PERSON] v. Northern Territory of Australia_ (2016) FCA 900, as well as the appeal decision _Northern Territory of Australia v. [PERSON]_ (2017) FCAFC 106.) is of a particular interest in this context. In the appeal decision, The Full Federal Court of Australia downsized from AUD 3.3 million to 2.9 million the amount of compensation to be paid to the _Ngaliwurru-Nungali_ aboriginal people, who were stripped out of their customary land during the development of the town of Timber Creek. However, despite finding mistakes in the calculation of the economic loss suffered by the aboriginal landholders, the Federal Court did not contend the inclusion of non-economics elements--mainly motivated through the spiritual value attached to land by the natives--in the calculation of the final value of the compensation. Despite being at the intersection of law and economics, this case clearly shows the importance of the previously mentioned _\"unobservable determinants of land values\"_. Trade is another branch of economics that can be of help in understanding LSLAs. Yet, just like the economic valuation of the land value, it probably requires some degree of conceptual adaptation in order to fully capture LSLAs. Indeed, trade economics traditionally assumed land to be a fixed production factor, both in terms of quantity supplied and mobility, as opposed to capital and labor, which are considered to be, at least to some extent, mobile factors [33; 34]. For instance, [PERSON] [35], who, to be fair, put the emphasis of his work on capital rather than on labor and land, defined land as _\"fixed stock [... ] wholly inert\"_ [Ibid., p. 441]. In line with this conception, within the most famous and influential models for international trade [36; 37; 38; 39; 40; 41], land, when included in the analysis, was considered at best an ancillary production factor, with the focus put mainly on capital and labor. Yet, the recent wave of transnational _Large-Scale Land Acquisitions_ (LSLAs) proves that the ownership of land is becoming increasingly mobile, so that each country's endowment of land is not constrained anymore to national borders. With the _perfect storm_ described in the previous section in the background and considering the main LSLAs features, land cannot be considered anymore simply as a stylized, abstract, and fixed production factor. Moreover, if the price of land is still largely a missing element from the LSLAs literature, the _Timber Creek_ case shows that the market value of land, alone, is not sufficient for a complete assessment of the value of this resource, which ultimately should include also a variety of non-economic factors. Back in 1944, [PERSON] [42] already understood the limitations of a conceptualization of land solely based on its economic functions [ibid., p. 178]:  
\"The economic function is but one of many vital functions of land. It invests man's life with stability; it is the site of his habitation; it is a condition of his physical safety; it is the landscape and the seasons.