Precisely the problem noted by de Soto. The third world countries and former marxist states have about 80% of their economy locked out of national wealth and unavailable as capital. It is simply the lack of extension of property rights by the government to the vast majority of its citizens that causes this. There is considerable wealth in shantytown, but it is not possible to use this wealth as capital and it cannot contribute to national wealth. The environmental issue is a side issue related to the lockup of most natural resources by government only because they can control the resources by refusing entry and claim to the land; at the same time the government cannot control shantytown. This is also coming to be the case in the Western, capitalist countries, even the US: the government has locked down vast resources and is beginning to lose control over private property in the cities.
One district plan recommended that a solitary rimu tree be "protected" along with an area of the surrounding pasture that comprised the entire working area of a Banks Peninsula farm. The farmer complained: "If I'd known the problem that tree was going to cause me, I would have cut it down twenty years ago". That's the message that the Resource Management Act sends to landowners right throughout the country.. . . it's . . . . bad for the environment. It turns environmental assets into [landowner] liabilities. When you [as a landowner] conserve native habitat, you run the risk with the Resource Management Act that government will come along and pinch your land.