Bundle of Sticks

When trying to explain the common law’s particular (and sometimes idiosyncratic) understanding of “ownership”, lawyers and judges frequently invoke the “bundle of sticks” metapho–as in, “ownership is like a bundle of sticks”–the “sticks” being the various property rights that make up the ownership “bundle”.

The idea behind the metaphor is that ownership is not really a homogeneous collection of rights that one either holds (ownership) or does not hold (no ownership). Instead, ownership is a malleable legal concept, difficult to pin down to any particular arrangement or bundle. One landowner might have an unrestricted right to use their land in any way they like, while another might have certain use rights taken out of their ownership bundle—say, by a restrictive covenant that binds and runs with the land. We would likely call both an “owner”, even though they hold different sets of legal entitlements in practice.

This “bundle” view of property of course raises the question: if stick after stick is eliminated from the ownership bundle, at what point does one cease to become an “owner” at all?